‘Halo:Reach’ Review
Brent Rose
Managing Editor
Halo: Reach is an enjoyable game to play, but developer Bungie delivers little originality in this, their first, and hopefully last, Halo prequel.
The game is not exactly like the back-to-basics Halo we all played on the original Xbox back in 2001, however. It’s more like if Halo had a child with the immensely popular Modern Warfare 2 and gave it a jet pack – Reach has all of Halo’s gameplay but its story and game aspects are
borrowed from Call of Duty.
Halo: Reach’s story could use some work. Instead of the lone wolf character Master Chief of previous Halo games, you play as a member of a squad of super-soldiers, known as “Noble Team,” trying to build a close dynamic.
While Bungie is trying to provide character depth to the story, each of your fellow computer-controlled Spartans don’t evoke the super-soldier mentality and instead suffer from technical issues. In fact, many of your non-playable allies run the risk of walking into walls or, if driving the vehicle you’re in, falling off a cliff.
Halo: Reach’s difficulty is plagued by the same drawback as its predecessor, Halo 3: ODST: you don’t play as genetically-engineered, hardened soldier Master Chief. Also, precision doesn’t seem to count for a lot in Reach.
Halo is not the only game with this problem, but it’s a shame that Bungie doesn’t try to evaluate difficulty based on enemies’ actions and reactions, but instead meausres it using increased health and the damage dealt by enemies, making the combat in higher difficulty levels feel more arbitrary and less dependent on skill and reaction.
Bungie does, however, bring back the skull bonuses, which are options to change the game in unique ways. Whether it’s by turning enemies
suicidal or making them more evasive, these bonuses are a good option for players looking to spice up the current difficulty.
There isn’t a lot to say about Halo: Reach at this point. If you have played a Halo game in the past, then there is nothing really surprising about Reach. In essence, Bungie keeps re-releasing their first big game, Halo. They add a few bells and whistles, and then give it an epic sequel title like Halo 3 or Reach.
At least with the previous game, ODST, Bungie forced the player to adopt a different play style – smart and silent instead of aggressive and loud – and experimented with a more interactive story like the hidden recorded messages of a wandering Earth citizen trying to escape the alien invasion and using the environment to instruct the player where to go.
In Reach, Bungie doesn’t take any risks when telling the story. It forces the player to watch pointless cinematic scenes, which takes away control from the player. Using cut scenes to tell a story in a video game misuses the medium: it’s no longer a video game when the player is forced to simply watch a scene and is no longer able to interact with the environment and characters to develop the story.
It’s not that Bungie made a bad game. Compared to the standards of today’s common video game, it’s pretty good. But it’s like the age-old saying, “if your friend jumps off a cliff, do you jump off too?” If everyone is doing nothing to change how players experience storytelling in video games, then Bungie apparently thinks its okay to not do anything new either.
I’m sorry to say I have to disagree with a lot of what you said in this review. When you say “the game is not exactly like the back to basics Halo” I have to disagree. The play style it forces players to adopt is a flash to the past with the focus on the DMR and the magnum, both semi automatic weapons. Both feel similar to the Halo CE pistol.
As for the game and story aspects being borrowed from COD I really don’t see how. In terms of campaign the difference between Halo and COD are Halo has a campaign worth playing, COD doesn’t. As for other aspects such as sprint, sprint was a consideration for halo since halo 2’s production.
As for team mate AI I completely agree it is trash, but it is not entirely useless. Leaving your fellow as a Spartans as Cannon fodder can help flank enemies on Legendary.
Damage to kill an enemy is not that high at all, with the exception of legendary hunters. Any enemy without shields (except one class of grunts, and brutes who have armour instead) can be killed with a single shot to the head. To take down an elite you just have to use the plasma pistol/magnum combo.
You fail to recognize the other amazing game features that have finally been realized by Bungie. Firefight is actually fun with all the customizable options, forge is fun for anyone with even the slightest bit of creativity. Matchmaking is as fun as its ever been and has increased variety and challenge. Multiplayer is 2/3 of why the average Halo player would want Reach and very few people would say it didn’t deliver.
As for cutscenes telling the story, I’m sorry to say unless your playing a game like Mass Effect (also amazing) the story will be told through cut scenes. It has been this way for a long time and probably won’t change. Was there really anything wrong in Ocarina of Time when it took control for half a minute to engulf you in the story?
Halo is a sandbox shooter. Your choices are not for the story but for the battle itself.
Halo Reach is not a perfect game. It has an infinite number of flaws and in some ways niche appeal. I feel you just didn’t touch on any of the actual issues which are all small and ignorable, such as the lack of the ability to change alpha zombie traits in custom games.
Halo Reach is the best Halo for me since Halo 2. Many were disappointed by Halo 3 overall lack of spunk. Reach for me and millions of other is the Halo we wanted when Bungie said they were going to finish the trilogy.
End of opinion.