nah, it doesnt even compete with the epic trilogy's story. halo 1 till 3 tell a very rich story with amazing characters, especially halo 2(even tough most people wont agree, halo 2 had the best cutscenes and script creating the best story in any halo game). But its a day ago since i finished the campaign, gathered my thoughts, and reach tries to showcase war. It does that well, but what i doesnt do well is showcasing the planet's war. billions of people died in that war, and there were way more spartans fighting on the battlefield, while reach just follows 'destroy this AA turret, take out these enemies here' etc. The story gets good at the last 2 missions,i enjoyed those. Overall amazing game nontheless ;-0
teun3sixty
Of course, 1 prequel isn't going to compete a story spread out through 3 whole games. Even with that perspective, it can be argued that the trilogy's narrative began to fall apart halfway through Halo 2. While I enjoyed the plot, the pacing got a bit convoluted once the Grave Mind made an appearance.
In a loose sense, Reach was like Titanic. You knew what was going to happen and it wasn't going to be good. I think they did a great job of gradually building up that sense of doom while moving the action forward. And they kept the plot simpler than the MC trilogy. It's a great example of how less is more.
Reach also did a much better job of humanizing the cast. Although Noble 6 was an empty vessel like the MC, he has enough of his team to inject some personality into the story. In Halo 1-3, there weren't enough interesting supporting characters to do that. There was Cortana, Sgt Johnson and the Arbiter. With Reach, there as an interesting dynamic between Carter and Kat, Emile and Jorge.
But in the end, I suppose we'll have to chalk this up to preference. Both are great. If we're just arguing which one is more awesome thatn the other, we both come out ahead either way.
Log in to comment