bungie cut alot of corners in reach.

First of all let me make it clear that I loved Halo Reach and ODST. I thought the series took a nose dive in Halo 2 and 3 was just average as a single player game. But Bungie outdid itself with Reach. In fact, other then Uncharted 2 and gears of war 1, it is the closest thing to a perfect game this gen.

but It really irritates me that as I was playing Reach I was seeing reused areas, textures, and enamy attack pattern's. Now the attack pattern's could be a fluke. As for the game texture's I know Bungie updated the engine but I think some of the game looks alot better than other parts. It is like taht with alot of games but it is really bad in Reach. The Alexandria area looks like a PS2 game. But my biggest gripe is playing mulitiplayer maps from the single player. This happens in all shooters but Bungie took it a step further. They have recycled multiplayer maps for years but why are we getting them in a new release and not a map pack? Even worse, why are old multiplayer maps inthe single player campaign? I mean Ivory Tower is actually part of a level.

Has anyone else been kind of puzzled by this? I know it is pre Halo 1 in the story arch and that explains some of it but come on. If you are gonna release with only 9 maps, make them completely new and fresh. I am sure that every Halo map will be released and polished for Reach at some point along with some new ones and I am also sure Micrsoft is gonna completely rape us on price.

Oh Well. Bungie probably had to cut corners to get the game out on time plus thery had to get started with Activision so I guess poop happens. I am actually glad Bungie is done with Halo. I think the series needs some new blood working on it and not a team that obviously had a set time table to hurt the polish.

Considering how chock-full of content the game came with, I didn't notice it at all. :)tagyhag

Considering how chock-full of content the game came with, I didn't notice it at all. :)tagyhag

Not sure what you're talking about with the attack patterns and whatnot, but I agree about the multiplayer maps. Mainly cause they're probably the worst in the series.Karnage108

why does everyone hate the maps,they work fine for me,i love reflection

[QUOTE="Karnage108"]Not sure what you're talking about with the attack patterns and whatnot, but I agree about the multiplayer maps. Mainly cause they're probably the worst in the series.Vader993

why does everyone hate the maps,they work fine for me,i love reflection

[QUOTE="Vader993"]

[QUOTE="Karnage108"]Not sure what you're talking about with the attack patterns and whatnot, but I agree about the multiplayer maps. Mainly cause they're probably the worst in the series.kobraka1

why does everyone hate the maps,they work fine for me,i love reflection

yes love that place,looks so relaxing

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]Considering how chock-full of content the game came with, I didn't notice it at all. :)kobraka1

That doesn't really effect how much content and value it has

I mean, all games that are sequels are built on some foundation.

If a Zelda comes out, gives me 10 dungeons and a dozen bosses, and a 40-50 hour adventure, i don't say "well i've done this before" i enjoy it (as long as its fun to play) and i've got terrific value out of it as it was full of content that I enjoyed.

on topic

I can't really say I think they cut corners

Multiplayer shooters always base their maps largely off single player maps, especially the SP maps that are so good they need 16 player fights.

I think the graphics look great, and Alexandria does not look like a PS2 game, its not the best area but your in a ship you're flying around and its dark and purple everywhere. It doesn't look as appealing coz the story and situation is setting the mood visually. As soon as you land the ship and destroy the jammers (were they jammers?) the graphics get better as their is more varied color everywhere else, except the sky is heavy with purple.

[QUOTE="kobraka1"][QUOTE="tagyhag"]Considering how chock-full of content the game came with, I didn't notice it at all. :)darth-pyschosis

That doesn't really effect how much content and value it has

I mean, all games that are sequels are built on some foundation.

If a Zelda comes out, gives me 10 dungeons and a dozen bosses, and a 40-50 hour adventure, i don't say "well i've done this before" i enjoy it (as long as its fun to play) and i've got terrific value out of it as it was full of content that I enjoyed.

on topic

I can't really say I think they cut corners

Multiplayer shooters always base their maps largely off single player maps, especially the SP maps that are so good they need 16 player fights.

I think the graphics look great, and Alexandria does not look like a PS2 game, its not the best area but your in a ship you're flying around and its dark and purple everywhere. It doesn't look as appealing coz the story and situation is setting the mood visually. As soon as you land the ship and destroy the jammers (were they jammers?) the graphics get better as their is more varied color everywhere else, except the sky is heavy with purple.

[QUOTE="Karnage108"]Not sure what you're talking about with the attack patterns and whatnot, but I agree about the multiplayer maps. Mainly cause they're probably the worst in the series.Vader993

why does everyone hate the maps,they work fine for me,i love reflection

I think the only corners that were cut were in the story

my biggest gripe is playing mulitiplayer maps from the single player. This happens in all shooters but Bungie took it a step further. They have recycled multiplayer maps for years but why are we getting them in a new release and not a map pack? kobraka1

[QUOTE="Vader993"]

[QUOTE="Karnage108"]Not sure what you're talking about with the attack patterns and whatnot, but I agree about the multiplayer maps. Mainly cause they're probably the worst in the series.Karnage108

why does everyone hate the maps,they work fine for me,i love reflection

don't worry i sense overpriced dlc is coming

[QUOTE="Vader993"]

[QUOTE="Karnage108"]Not sure what you're talking about with the attack patterns and whatnot, but I agree about the multiplayer maps. Mainly cause they're probably the worst in the series.Karnage108

why does everyone hate the maps,they work fine for me,i love reflection

I find this statement funny, because cutting corners in a video game actually requires more work.

They need to put alteast one good symmetrical map in with 2 bases, like The Pit. Boardwalk is especially annoying to me with it's completely random respawn areas.

Also, how about some corridors? Almost every Reach map is outdoors in open areas.

First of all let me make it clear that I loved Halo Reach and ODST. I thought the series took a nose dive in Halo 2 and 3 was just average as a single player game. But Bungie outdid itself with Reach. In fact, other then Uncharted 2 and gears of war 1, it is the closest thing to a perfect game this gen.

but It really irritates me that as I was playing Reach I was seeing reused areas, textures, and enamy attack pattern's. Now the attack pattern's could be a fluke. As for the game texture's I know Bungie updated the engine but I think some of the game looks alot better than other parts. It is like taht with alot of games but it is really bad in Reach. The Alexandria area looks like a PS2 game. But my biggest gripe is playing mulitiplayer maps from the single player. This happens in all shooters but Bungie took it a step further. They have recycled multiplayer maps for years but why are we getting them in a new release and not a map pack? Even worse, why are old multiplayer maps inthe single player campaign? I mean Ivory Tower is actually part of a level.

Has anyone else been kind of puzzled by this? I know it is pre Halo 1 in the story arch and that explains some of it but come on. If you are gonna release with only 9 maps, make them completely new and fresh. I am sure that every Halo map will be released and polished for Reach at some point along with some new ones and I am also sure Micrsoft is gonna completely rape us on price.

Oh Well. Bungie probably had to cut corners to get the game out on time plus thery had to get started with Activision so I guess poop happens. I am actually glad Bungie is done with Halo. I think the series needs some new blood working on it and not a team that obviously had a set time table to hurt the polish.

kobraka1

[QUOTE="Karnage108"][QUOTE="Vader993"]

why does everyone hate the maps,they work fine for me,i love reflection

kobraka1

once again:

it's hilarious that the people with Halo avatars and signatures jump into this thread stating "WTF? no i had no problem man", like we're supposed to be surprised like "wha??? i thought everyone had the same consensus!!! you don't agree?!?!".

there are plenty of problems with Reach. to name a few?

-the Grief system.

-the Campaign (yeah, it's a good campaign, by Halo standards)

-the map inferiority compared to Halo 3 (which is odd considering a few are remakes)

-lack of two person Theater viewing

really, stop touting the game as if it's somehow God's gift to man, because it's not.

once again:

it's hilarious that the people with Halo avatars and signatures jump into this thread stating "WTF? no i had no problem man", like we're supposed to be surprised like "wha??? i thought everyone had the same consensus!!! you don't agree?!?!".

there are plenty of problems with Reach. to name a few?

-the Grief system.

-the Campaign (yeah, it's a good campaign, by Halo standards)

-the map inferiority compared to Halo 3 (which is odd considering a few are remakes)

-lack of two person Theater viewing

really, stop touting the game as if it's somehow God's gift to man, because it's not.

HelloMoto56

It is the best first person shooter on consoles, though.

It is the best first person shooter on consoles, though.

waltefmoney

no it's not, because Half-Life is on consoles.

:roll:

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

It is the best first person shooter on consoles, though.

HelloMoto56

no it's not, because Half-Life is on consoles.

:roll:

I should have said console-exclusive shooter. Anyway, I prefer Halo to Half Life. I don't like the Half Life multiplayer.

[QUOTE="HelloMoto56"]

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

It is the best first person shooter on consoles, though.

waltefmoney

no it's not, because Half-Life is on consoles.

:roll:

I should have said console-exclusive shooter. Anyway, I prefer Halo to Half Life. I don't like the Half Life multiplayer.

No you're right. The PC version of HL2 is the best, and even then, Reach does a lot of things better.Karnage108

name a few, because it sure isn't the campaign.

and it sure isn't Half-Life 2's multiplayer (Counter Strike).

comparing Halo: Reach to the Half-Life 2's PC version is crazy.

once again:

it's hilarious that the people with Halo avatars and signatures jump into this thread stating "WTF? no i had no problem man", like we're supposed to be surprised like "wha??? i thought everyone had the same consensus!!! you don't agree?!?!".

there are plenty of problems with Reach. to name a few?

-the Grief system.

-the Campaign (yeah, it's a good campaign, by Halo standards)

-the map inferiority compared to Halo 3 (which is odd considering a few are remakes)

-lack of two person Theater viewing

really, stop touting the game as if it's somehow God's gift to man, because it's not.

HelloMoto56

lack of two person theatre viewing, are you serious, how many other games even have a theatre mode as decent as Halo's, oh that's right, none, you can't complain about a feature that isn't done better anywhere else, and the campaign is awesome,if you don't like it that's just your opinion, oh ,i forgot, you probably havn't even played the game, and nobody's been touting the game as the second coming.delta3074

oh, and i forgot random FPS drops where there shouldn't even be framerate drops.

Everyone seemed so surprised that the MP maps were worked in the campaign.

Bungie made no attempt to hide this. It was in alot of weekly updates. Yet now everyone's acting like they had no warning.

I, for one, enjoy the connecting between SP and MP. Helps give them maps a much more lifelike feeling. Makes the world seem larger, instead of small instances like in the multiplayer.

That being said, we do need more maps.

[QUOTE="Karnage108"]No you're right. The PC version of HL2 is the best, and even then, Reach does a lot of things better.HelloMoto56

name a few, because it sure as hell isn't the campaign.

and it sure isn't Half-Life 2's multiplayer (Counter Strike).

comparing Halo: Reach to the Half-Life 2's PC version is insane, don't try it.

Half-Life 2's multiplayer is not Counter-Strike. Half Life 2's multiplayer is..... wait for it.....

Half-Life 2: Deathmatch.

Yes, HL2 was originally packaged with CS:S, but that does not make it HL2's MP mode. That's like saying Portal's multiplayer is Team Fortress 2.

[QUOTE="Karnage108"]No you're right. The PC version of HL2 is the best, and even then, Reach does a lot of things better.HelloMoto56

name a few, because it sure as hell isn't the campaign.

and it sure isn't Half-Life 2's multiplayer (Counter Strike).

comparing Halo: Reach to the Half-Life 2's PC version is insane, don't try it.

In comparison to the PC version of HL2 though, how about 4 player co-op? Multiplayer? (I guess you could say HL2: DM, but again, TF2/CSS are nothing like HL2; they just use the source engine) Class system as well as other kinds of player customization? Gameplay modes/customizations? Easy to use map editor? Campaign is certainly more exciting/fun. All in all, Reach is just a much more complete and polished game at this point.

[QUOTE="HelloMoto56"]

[QUOTE="Karnage108"]No you're right. The PC version of HL2 is the best, and even then, Reach does a lot of things better.Karnage108

name a few, because it sure as hell isn't the campaign.

and it sure isn't Half-Life 2's multiplayer (Counter Strike).

comparing Halo: Reach to the Half-Life 2's PC version is insane, don't try it.

but you said "The PC version of HL2 is the best, and even then, Reach does a lot things better", which insinuates that Reach still beats the PC version of Half-Life 2, which is wrong.

and no, Counter Strike is still widely regarded as the multiplayer component of Half-Life 2. it being packaged with it doesn't help your claims. trying to state otherwise is damage control because you know Reach doesn't hold a candle to CSS.

edit: i just realized that you tried to pass off Reach's campaign as better than Half-Life 2's. why am i still arguing?

[QUOTE="Karnage108"]

[QUOTE="HelloMoto56"]

name a few, because it sure as hell isn't the campaign.

and it sure isn't Half-Life 2's multiplayer (Counter Strike).

comparing Halo: Reach to the Half-Life 2's PC version is insane, don't try it.

HelloMoto56

but you said "The PC version of HL2 is the best, and even then, Reach does a lot things better", which insinuates that Reach still beats the PC version of Half-Life 2, which is wrong.

and no, Counter Strike is still widely regarded as the multiplayer component of Half-Life 2. it being packaged with it doesn't help your claims. trying to state otherwise is damage control because you know Reach doesn't hold a candle to CSS.

edit: i just realized that you tried to pass off Reach's campaign as better than Half-Life 2's. why am i still arguing?

Counter Strike is a separate game. Half Life has it's own multiplayer component.

Counter Strike is a separate game. Half Life has it's own multiplayer component.

waltefmoney

okay, let's not regard CSS.

are we to disregard mods as well? if so, this is a situational argument. there is no possibly way for Halo: Reach to beat out the PC version of Half-Life 2.

it just isn't doable.

offtopic: this is also reminding me why i dislike console owners so much. which is why i lmao at the claims of me being a cow, since i am first and foremost a PC gamer, which i've stated numerous times :lol:.

but you said "The PC version of HL2 is the best, and even then, Reach does a lot things better", which insinuates that Reach still beats the PC version of Half-Life 2, which is wrong.

and no, Counter Strike is still widely regarded as the multiplayer component of Half-Life 2. it being packaged with it doesn't help your claims. trying to state otherwise is damage control because you know Reach doesn't hold a candle to CSS.

edit: i just realized that you tried to pass off Reach's campaign as better than Half-Life 2's. why am i still arguing?

HelloMoto56

Um, no one thinks Half-Life 2's multiplayer is Counter-Strike: Source. No one thinks Counter-Strike: Source's single player is Half-Life 2.

[QUOTE="HelloMoto56"]

but you said "The PC version of HL2 is the best, and even then, Reach does a lot things better", which insinuates that Reach still beats the PC version of Half-Life 2, which is wrong.

and no, Counter Strike is still widely regarded as the multiplayer component of Half-Life 2. it being packaged with it doesn't help your claims. trying to state otherwise is damage control because you know Reach doesn't hold a candle to CSS.

edit: i just realized that you tried to pass off Reach's campaign as better than Half-Life 2's. why am i still arguing?

FrozenLiquid

Um, no one thinks Half-Life 2's multiplayer is Counter-Strike: Source. No one thinks Counter-Strike: Source's single player is Half-Life 2.

i've already regarded this. you are being redundant.

I think Alexandria is one of the most visually impressive levels in Reach.

On topic, recycle mp maps from the campaign was a clever idea to be able to include everything into just 1 DVD.

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

Counter Strike is a separate game. Half Life has it's own multiplayer component.

HelloMoto56

okay, let's not regard CSS.

are we to disregard mods as well? if so, this is a situational argument. there is no possibly way for Halo: Reach to beat out the PC version of Half-Life 2.

it just isn't doable.

offtopic: this is also reminding me why i dislike console owners so much. which is why i lmao at the claims of me being a cow, since i am first and foremost a PC gamer, which i've stated numerous times :lol:.

Don't head off into ad hominem territory bro. Would you like to know the reason I don't claim myself to be a hermit (and you can look at my GS profile to verify)?

A clue: it starts with "a" and ends with "rrogance".

-

Anyway, if you want to argue, then we'd have to argue properly. We've so far agreed that CS:S is not HL2's multiplayer component. Now we have to tackle the next big thing: "mods".

"Mods" isn't an argument. "Mods" is a tool. You can use the SDK to create anything you want, from machinima to total conversions. But they're not Half-Life 2, just like Red vs. Blue is not and never will be Halo: Reach. Source SDK is not Half-Life 2. It's the tools given that power Half-Life 2.

[QUOTE="HelloMoto56"]

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

Counter Strike is a separate game. Half Life has it's own multiplayer component.

FrozenLiquid

okay, let's not regard CSS.

are we to disregard mods as well? if so, this is a situational argument. there is no possibly way for Halo: Reach to beat out the PC version of Half-Life 2.

it just isn't doable.

offtopic: this is also reminding me why i dislike console owners so much. which is why i lmao at the claims of me being a cow, since i am first and foremost a PC gamer, which i've stated numerous times :lol:.

Don't head off into ad hominem territory bro. Would you like to know the reason I don't claim myself to be a hermit (and you can look at my GS profile to verify)?

A clue: it starts with "a" and ends with "rrogance".

-

Anyway, if you want to argue, then we'd have to argue properly. We've so far agreed that CS:S is not HL2's multiplayer component. Now we have to tackle the next big thing: "mods".

"Mods" isn't an argument. "Mods" is a tool. You can use the SDK to create anything you want, from machinima to total conversions. But they're not Half-Life 2, just like Red vs. Blue is not and never will be Halo: Reach. Source SDK is not Half-Life 2. It's the tools given that power Half-Life 2.

dude, change your font format.

i couldn't even reply to it at first because it caused a forbidden HTML error.

dude, change your font format.

i couldn't even reply to it at first because it caused a forbidden HTML error.

HelloMoto56

Tip: change it yourself so you can reply to it without beating around the bush. You managed to reply to my other ones. Still waiting on some good rebuttal about KZ2 in the other thread.

Don't head off into ad hominem territory bro. Would you like to know the reason I don't claim myself to be a hermit (and you can look at my GS profile to verify)?

A clue: it starts with "a" and ends with "rrogance".

-

Anyway, if you want to argue, then we'd have to argue properly. We've so far agreed that CS:S is not HL2's multiplayer component. Now we have to tackle the next big thing: "mods".

"Mods" isn't an argument. "Mods" is a tool. You can use the SDK to create anything you want, from machinima to total conversions. But they're not Half-Life 2, just like Red vs. Blue is not and never will be Halo: Reach. Source SDK is not Half-Life 2. It's the tools given that power Half-Life 2.

FrozenLiquid

Half-Life 2 doesn't really need the help of its mods or CS:S to stand up to Reach, given the strength of its campaign.

That said, do the maps created with Forge count, while Half-Life 2's mods do not? Why include one and not the other?

There are some significant differences in scale, integration, and usability, but they're still both the fruits of user-generated content.

[QUOTE="HelloMoto56"]

dude, change your font format.

i couldn't even reply to it at first because it caused a forbidden HTML error.

FrozenLiquid

Tip: change it yourself so you can reply to it without beating around the bush. You managed to reply to my other ones. Still waiting on some good rebuttal about KZ2 in the other thread.

why would i waste my time changing your font format when you could easily adjust to the default like everyone else?

you must have me mistaken for someone else (perhaps a slave?)

Half-Life 2 doesn't really need the help of its mods or CS:S to stand up to Reach, given the strength of its campaign.

That said, do the maps created with Forge count, while Half-Life 2's mods do not? Why include one and not the other?

There are some significant differences in scale, integration, and usability, but they're still both the fruits of user-generated content.

sonicmj1

While I still do agree that Half-Life 2 has the better campaign than Reach, I think the merits of both games have been skewed by preconceived notions with no real basis in fact if we were to look at each game as it is. For example, while people enjoy Half-Life 2's campaign, not only can it be said that it's simply a graphical overhaul of the first game with very little that has changed gameplay wise, the strength of its gameplay is severely lacking compared to contemporary titles. What it does right and arguably has not been beaten yet is of course, the presentation. Suppose Half-Life 2's presentation was average: would it still be as glorified a game as it is now?

Likewise, with Halo: Reach, most of the criticisms of the past Halo games have been rectified. However, two things are still left standing: it's not out-and-out the best looking game ever (whether it was an implausible desire is irrelevant) and weak storytelling. Because of this, the game's faults get overblown. That said, there's no level repetition, there's better variation in gameplay than previous games, the gunplay has been beefed up somewhat and despite the weak storytelling, the attempt has been the best since the first. Again, a hypothetical question: if Halo Reach looked amazing and had better narrative focus (but no refinement in gameplay), would it be as criticized as it is now?

-

While Forge and SDKs both create user generated content, the means in which they do so require them to be put into separate categories. It is very difficult to argue the case for SDKs in terms of the value of a particular game (in this case, Half-Life 2), simply because there's no real limit on where to stop. Example: is Left 4 Dead a game on its own right? Or is it a mod of Half-Life 2?Like an amateur HL2 mod, it spawned from the Source SDK. The typical Counter-Strike example illustrates this: the game was initially a free mod, then became a standalone title on its own right. Therefore, what is it, a mod or its own game?

Forge doesn't have this issue. It not even about editing the Reach engine, it's simply something you can do within a given "level" in Reach. Forge isn't comparable to any SDK: if anything, it's comparable to Garry's Mod. Would anyone say that Garry's Mod is a SDK?

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="HelloMoto56"]

dude, change your font format.

i couldn't even reply to it at first because it caused a forbidden HTML error.

HelloMoto56

Tip: change it yourself so you can reply to it without beating around the bush. You managed to reply to my other ones. Still waiting on some good rebuttal about KZ2 in the other thread.

why would i waste my time changing your font format when you could easily adjust to the default like everyone else?

you must have me mistaken for someone else (perhaps a slave?)

And you must have mistaken me for a fool?

Amazing, you can reply to everything but my arguments. Glitchspot, why do you torture this poor person like this!

Yeah I agree.. Instead of working on the crap that was ODST they should have spent more time on reach and making good MP exclusive maps etc.

Yeh, I was annoyed seeing that pretty much all the MP maps are in singleplayer. Really Bungie? AAllxxjjnn