From a scale of 1-10, how much did you like Halo Reach's campaign?

TRF wrote:

Arbiteris wrote:

You cant expect a small team of characters in one shooter to have as much depth as say someone from heavy rain or some RPG

Why not? Heavy Rain had four characters that were all fleshed-out incredibly well, and I'm pretty sure the game can be completed in less time than Halo: Reach (don't quote me on that).

Besides, just because Bungie has an excuse (it's a small team of characters in one shooter) doesn't mean I can give the character development a pass.

By your logic, sports games should be penilized for having no story.Different genres and different types of games have different standards.

And the characters in reach were well done.You havnt given any reasons yet how they werent

raspymanic1 wrote:

10 for sure best game on 360

I'm talking about campaign. Not the game.

Solid 7.5. It was a good ride but the length of the campaign for Bungie's last game really should have been longer.

KonaBro wrote:

Solid 7.5. It was a good ride but the length of the campaign for Bungie's last game really should have been longer.

8-10 hours..Id say thats pretty good length for a shooter nowadays.Alot of them now are even shorter than that

The characters could have been fleshed out more. I really didn't care for the characters bar Noble Six. The ending was very good though.

Arbiteris wrote:

KonaBro wrote:

Solid 7.5. It was a good ride but the length of the campaign for Bungie's last game really should have been longer.

8-10 hours..Id say thats pretty good length for a shooter nowadays.Alot of them now are even shorter than that

8-10 hours on Legendary maybe but I cruised through Halo on Normal in like 5 hours. I'll have to see my exact time though.

KonaBro wrote:

Arbiteris wrote:

KonaBro wrote:

Solid 7.5. It was a good ride but the length of the campaign for Bungie's last game really should have been longer.

8-10 hours..Id say thats pretty good length for a shooter nowadays.Alot of them now are even shorter than that

8-10 hours on Legendary maybe but I cruised through Halo on Normal in like 5 hours. I'll have to see my exact time though.

Yeah, I got 6 maybe 7 hours on normal. Not very long

watching it doesnt count...

i give a 7... boring alot and repetetive but the music and ending were cool

Arbiteris wrote:

TRF wrote:

Arbiteris wrote:

TRF wrote:

raspymanic1 wrote:

the ending is epic. tru story driven - hope, courage and sacrifice

The characters were one-dimensional, the cutscenes were boring up until the end, the pacing was poor, and the dialogue was far from anything to write home about.

Watching the game allows me to judge its story,charcters mission ect.

I disagree,the story was epic.The characters were good,they werent some swearing asshole marines like in other shooters.Each one also has personality.

the cutscenes were boring?Let me guess,a only good cutscene for you is one that involves explosions right?No,Reach's cutscenes were great and really helped telling the story.They seemed very real.The character deaths were very well done and I loved how before some of the missions aunti dot showed on a map what is gonig on and I also love how the cutscenes show the date and time.Halo Reach's cutscenes were awesome

What was wrong with is dialogue?

And the overall story for reach was pure epic.Tons of action,sacrifice and hope.

Now,the only downside of watching the campaign I cant judge how much fun I had playing it.But I can judge the story characters ect

No, I like cutscenes that have interesting dialogue and interesting characters, neither of which the cutscenes had. If I only liked explosions, I wouldn't have loved Heavy Rain, now would I have?

You cant expect a small team of characters in one shooter to have as much depth as say someone from heavy rain or some RPG

it EASIER to have more depth with less characters...
take masterchief for example, he was the last of his kind which was cool

Madtoker wrote:

watching it doesnt count...

i give a 7... boring alot and repetetive but the music and ending were cool

Actually it does.I can easily tell how good its story and what its missions are like.The only thing I cant judge is the fun factor which I will find out next week when I get to play it

Arbiteris wrote:

Madtoker wrote:

watching it doesnt count...

i give a 7... boring alot and repetetive but the music and ending were cool

Actually it does.I can easily tell how good its story and what its missions are like.The only thing I cant judge is the fun factor which I will find out next week when I get to play it

And the fun factor is why we play games. And that is the biggest influence in rating a game's campaign.

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Arbiteris wrote:

Madtoker wrote:

watching it doesnt count...

i give a 7... boring alot and repetetive but the music and ending were cool

Actually it does.I can easily tell how good its story and what its missions are like.The only thing I cant judge is the fun factor which I will find out next week when I get to play it

And the fun factor is why we play games. And that is the biggest influence in rating a game's campaign.

Thats debatable.Because story can greatly influence "fun" for some gamers.If a game has crappy gameplay but great story ill probally have more fun with it then I would if it was vice versa.

Arbiteris wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Arbiteris wrote:

Madtoker wrote:

watching it doesnt count...

i give a 7... boring alot and repetetive but the music and ending were cool

Actually it does.I can easily tell how good its story and what its missions are like.The only thing I cant judge is the fun factor which I will find out next week when I get to play it

And the fun factor is why we play games. And that is the biggest influence in rating a game's campaign.

Thats debatable.Because story can greatly influence "fun" for some gamers.If a game has crappy gameplay but great story ill probally have more fun with it then I would if it was vice versa.

Well to each his own then. But at least for me, and most people I know, gameplay > story.

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Arbiteris wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Arbiteris wrote:

Madtoker wrote:

watching it doesnt count...

i give a 7... boring alot and repetetive but the music and ending were cool

Actually it does.I can easily tell how good its story and what its missions are like.The only thing I cant judge is the fun factor which I will find out next week when I get to play it

And the fun factor is why we play games. And that is the biggest influence in rating a game's campaign.

Thats debatable.Because story can greatly influence "fun" for some gamers.If a game has crappy gameplay but great story ill probally have more fun with it then I would if it was vice versa.

Well to each his own then. But at least for me, and most people I know, gameplay > story.

Especially since Reach has a mediocre story. I never invested much interest in the story since, frankly, it's pretty lousy.

TRF wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Arbiteris wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Arbiteris wrote:

Madtoker wrote:

watching it doesnt count...

i give a 7... boring alot and repetetive but the music and ending were cool

Actually it does.I can easily tell how good its story and what its missions are like.The only thing I cant judge is the fun factor which I will find out next week when I get to play it

And the fun factor is why we play games. And that is the biggest influence in rating a game's campaign.

Thats debatable.Because story can greatly influence "fun" for some gamers.If a game has crappy gameplay but great story ill probally have more fun with it then I would if it was vice versa.

Well to each his own then. But at least for me, and most people I know, gameplay > story.

Especially since Reach has a mediocre story. I never invested much interest in the story since, frankly, it's pretty lousy.

It wasn't mediocre. I just didn't like how it was executed. They could have definantely fleshed out the characters more. The campaign level design and the missions themselves were pretty fun though.

Alan1994 wrote:

TRF wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Arbiteris wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Arbiteris wrote:

Madtoker wrote:

watching it doesnt count...

i give a 7... boring alot and repetetive but the music and ending were cool

Actually it does.I can easily tell how good its story and what its missions are like.The only thing I cant judge is the fun factor which I will find out next week when I get to play it

And the fun factor is why we play games. And that is the biggest influence in rating a game's campaign.

Thats debatable.Because story can greatly influence "fun" for some gamers.If a game has crappy gameplay but great story ill probally have more fun with it then I would if it was vice versa.

Well to each his own then. But at least for me, and most people I know, gameplay > story.

Especially since Reach has a mediocre story. I never invested much interest in the story since, frankly, it's pretty lousy.

It wasn't mediocre. I just didn't like how it was executed. They could have definantely fleshed out the characters more. The campaign level design and the missions themselves were pretty fun though.

Yes, the missions themselves were pretty fun. The campaign as a whole was fun. I'm just saying the story was mediocre/lousy.

TRF wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

TRF wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Arbiteris wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Arbiteris wrote:

Madtoker wrote:

watching it doesnt count...

i give a 7... boring alot and repetetive but the music and ending were cool

Actually it does.I can easily tell how good its story and what its missions are like.The only thing I cant judge is the fun factor which I will find out next week when I get to play it

And the fun factor is why we play games. And that is the biggest influence in rating a game's campaign.

Thats debatable.Because story can greatly influence "fun" for some gamers.If a game has crappy gameplay but great story ill probally have more fun with it then I would if it was vice versa.

Well to each his own then. But at least for me, and most people I know, gameplay > story.

Especially since Reach has a mediocre story. I never invested much interest in the story since, frankly, it's pretty lousy.

It wasn't mediocre. I just didn't like how it was executed. They could have definantely fleshed out the characters more. The campaign level design and the missions themselves were pretty fun though.

Yes, the missions themselves were pretty fun. The campaign as a whole was fun. I'm just saying the story was mediocre/lousy.

No it wasnt. The game illustated the Fall of Reach wonderfully. The story wasnt about the characters, it was about courage and the Fall of Reach itself(biggest battle in the human/covenant war).

They even presented the cutscenes great.I loved how they showed the date,time and location

But how well the story was is oppinion.You think that halo games have bad story, I think the total opposite.we both have different tastes

TRF wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

TRF wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Arbiteris wrote:

TheJubJub5721 wrote:

Arbiteris wrote:

Madtoker wrote:

watching it doesnt count...

i give a 7... boring alot and repetetive but the music and ending were cool

Actually it does.I can easily tell how good its story and what its missions are like.The only thing I cant judge is the fun factor which I will find out next week when I get to play it

And the fun factor is why we play games. And that is the biggest influence in rating a game's campaign.

Thats debatable.Because story can greatly influence "fun" for some gamers.If a game has crappy gameplay but great story ill probally have more fun with it then I would if it was vice versa.

Well to each his own then. But at least for me, and most people I know, gameplay > story.

Especially since Reach has a mediocre story. I never invested much interest in the story since, frankly, it's pretty lousy.

It wasn't mediocre. I just didn't like how it was executed. They could have definantely fleshed out the characters more. The campaign level design and the missions themselves were pretty fun though.

Yes, the missions themselves were pretty fun. The campaign as a whole was fun. I'm just saying the story was mediocre/lousy.

Well then that's all that should matter. Shooters generally have very generic storylines. Even UC2 which had great cinematics and voice acting had a pretty basic story and plot.

If you want the Halo story at it's best, you should buy the books.

Alan1994 wrote:

Well then that's all that should matter. Shooters generally have very generic storylines. Even UC2 which had great cinematics and voice acting had a pretty basic story and plot.

If you want the Halo story at it's best, you should buy the books.

I wouldn't be praising Reach if the mediocre story bothered me all that much, now would I? I gave up on the Halo story a long time ago. Yeah, Uncharted 2 had a basic story and plot, but it was still way out of Halo's league. It had a basic plot, but the characters were interesting and the writing was brilliant. That is what makes a story great, even if the plot is basic.

TRF wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

Well then that's all that should matter. Shooters generally have very generic storylines. Even UC2 which had great cinematics and voice acting had a pretty basic story and plot.

If you want the Halo story at it's best, you should buy the books.

I wouldn't be praising Reach if the mediocre story bothered me all that much, now would I? I gave up on the Halo story a long time ago. Yeah, Uncharted 2 had a basic story and plot, but it was still way out of Halo's league. It had a basic plot, but the characters were interesting and the writing was brilliant. That is what makes a story great, even if the plot is basic.

Thats easily dabatable.

Arbiteris wrote:

TRF wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

Well then that's all that should matter. Shooters generally have very generic storylines. Even UC2 which had great cinematics and voice acting had a pretty basic story and plot.

If you want the Halo story at it's best, you should buy the books.

I wouldn't be praising Reach if the mediocre story bothered me all that much, now would I? I gave up on the Halo story a long time ago. Yeah, Uncharted 2 had a basic story and plot, but it was still way out of Halo's league. It had a basic plot, but the characters were interesting and the writing was brilliant. That is what makes a story great, even if the plot is basic.

Thats easily dabatable.

Then debate away.

TRF wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

Well then that's all that should matter. Shooters generally have very generic storylines. Even UC2 which had great cinematics and voice acting had a pretty basic story and plot.

If you want the Halo story at it's best, you should buy the books.

I wouldn't be praising Reach if the mediocre story bothered me all that much, now would I? I gave up on the Halo story a long time ago. Yeah, Uncharted 2 had a basic story and plot, but it was still way out of Halo's league. It had a basic plot, but the characters were interesting and the writing was brilliant. That is what makes a story great, even if the plot is basic.

This is where most games fail in terms of an actual decent storyline. It doesn't matter if the side characters are interesting, that's icing on the cake. How good a game's plot pretty much develops the frame of how decent the overall storyline is.

Another example: Mass Effect 2. ME2 has argueablly one of the best side characters and stories connected to them in the history of games. The main plot however, sucks. All you do is fight the collectors a couple times and then go to their turf and kill another reaper. You never truely learn more about the Collectors or the Collector General. The side characters that you picked up had absolutely no meaning or true purpose whatsoever to the mainplot. With the exception of Mordin, who made you a remedy to stop you from getting frozen by those collector bugs.

Alan1994 wrote:

TRF wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

Well then that's all that should matter. Shooters generally have very generic storylines. Even UC2 which had great cinematics and voice acting had a pretty basic story and plot.

If you want the Halo story at it's best, you should buy the books.

I wouldn't be praising Reach if the mediocre story bothered me all that much, now would I? I gave up on the Halo story a long time ago. Yeah, Uncharted 2 had a basic story and plot, but it was still way out of Halo's league. It had a basic plot, but the characters were interesting and the writing was brilliant. That is what makes a story great, even if the plot is basic.

This is where most games fail in terms of an actual decent storyline. It doesn't matter if the side characters are interesting, that's icing on the cake. How good a game's plot pretty much develops the frame of how decent the overall storyline is.

Another example: Mass Effect 2. ME2 has argueablly one of the best side characters and stories connected to them in the history of games. The main plot however, sucks. All you do is fight the collectors a couple times and then go to their turf and kill another reaper. You never truely learn more about the Collectors or the Collector General. The side characters that you picked up had absolutely no meaning or true purpose whatsoever to the mainplot. With the exception of Mordin, who made you a remedy to stop you from getting frozen by those collector bugs.

Games rarely have good plots. The last game I played that had a great plot was Red Dead Redemption, and even in that game, the characters were the best part.

Halo: CE was more of Sci Fi.
Halo: Reach was more like a war themed.

I like the Sci Fi more.

DarkSwarm85 wrote:

Halo: CE was more of Sci Fi.
Halo: Reach was more like a war themed.

I like the Sci Fi more.

Thats because Halo CE was about landing on an unkown mysterious alien ringworld and surviving.

Halo Reach was about the biggest battle in the human/covenant war(Fall of Reach)