[big ander]

Lol seriously though, I am less likely to believe all of that shit now that it turns out that they're not his photos. Bungie, you got some esplainin to do!

This.
Urk, I'm expecting something pretty big from the update this week. No "Maybe there's stuff out on the internet, but we can't comment, now look at what sketch found!"

[DCharlie]

I originally viewed it as a quick cash in scheme, and from people I trust opinions, I was right. Sad thing is I could just gamefly it, but I have no ambition to play something I feel doesn't have the effort put into it as my friends confirmed, and I have lots of other stuff worthy of my attention to play. H2 let me down. H3 pissed me off beyond belief. It will take a solid effort to get me back into it. I can always hope they'll make a proper "sequel" that the first one and universe they created deserves.

H3 wasn't that bad, i can see people being a bit disappointed but pissed off beyond belief?

edit : wait, never mind, just saw who the poster is.

[Slightly Live]

This. Urk, I'm expecting something pretty big from the update this week. No "Maybe there's stuff out on the internet, but we can't comment, now look at what sketch found!"

No u

[big ander]

No u

wait...me?

[Slightly Live]

MLG forums have now removed the Reach Leak Pictures thread from the forums.
Bungie.net forums has been dishing out bans wholesale for even mentioning the Reach Leak Pictures.

[CrazedArabMan]

wait...me?

No u

lulz

[J-Rzez]

H3 wasn't that bad, i can see people being a bit disappointed but pissed off beyond belief? edit : wait, never mind, just saw who the poster is.

The 3rd story was bad, it felt everything was slopped together. Then you had that throwback to CE's "final level", but it was atrocious looking, and it most certainly felt tacked on and made no sense in execution. Thing is, they have an incredible universe at their disposal with this series. Unfortunately they didn't tap deeply into it at all. On top of the lack of compelling single player experience, you can not deny the technical problems of the game, not to mention that stupid anus level. And fuck the flood. That shit should've been left behind after CE lol.

fake edit : wait, never mind, just saw who the poster is

[Why For?]

so much trolling, and the Halo fan got banned :lol

I wonder how the squad based gameplay will work in this? I have faith in Bungie to make this good.

My gut tells me this could be the best Halo yet.

New engine, new gameplay mechanic, plenty of new editions. I'm hyped.

[Why For?]

The 3rd story was bad, it felt everything was slopped together. Then you had that throwback to CE's "final level", but it was atrocious looking, and it most certainly felt tacked on and made no sense in execution. Thing is, they have an incredible universe at their disposal with this series. Unfortunately they didn't tap deeply into it at all. On top of the lack of compelling single player experience, you can not deny the technical problems of the game, not to mention that stupid anus level. And fuck the flood. That shit should've been left behind after CE lol. fake edit : wait, never mind, just saw who the poster is

What technical problems?

You mean the technical problem where it manages to create that MASSIVE open world even with 4 player split screen? Which no other game has done? You mean THOSE technical problems?

aaaaaaalrighty then.

Aside from the anus level (:lol ) the rest was ace. But having one REALLY shitty flood level has pretty much become a Halo staple tradition now. 1,2 AND 3 had it. Only ODST didn't, and it was better offf for it.

I don't think the flood has been unleashed in Reach, so luckily that's ANOTHER positive this game has going for it.

I have a REALLY good feeling about this one.

[jetjevons]

I have a REALLY good feeling about this one.

Me too.

[J-Rzez]

What technical problems? I don't think the flood has been unleashed in Reach, so luckily that's ANOTHER positive this game has going for it. I have a REALLY good feeling about this one.

It had some really shitty framerate problems. Usually I can look past them, but they were too prevalent at times for me even. Also, for the period of time I was playing, the online suffered from tremendous amounts of lag, disconnects, etc. This wasn't just the first couple days either, which is sad for a game of this stature.

But yes, that is ONE feature that gives me hope with Reach, that it's before CE, and iirc from reading (i maybe wrong), the flood wasn't unleashed just yet. That shit was terrible. It should've been left ALL dead after CE.

[DeadGzuz]

What technical problems? You mean the technical problem where it manages to create that MASSIVE open world even with 4 player split screen? Which no other game has done? You mean THOSE technical problems? aaaaaaalrighty then.

I think he is referring to the sub-HD lack of AA and AF problems. Which of course have little to do with four player split screen or "massive open worlds", they are due to the 10MB eDRAM and Bungie's HDR solution.

[DCharlie]

The 3rd story was bad, it felt everything was slopped together. Then you had that throwback to CE's "final level", but it was atrocious looking, and it most certainly felt tacked on and made no sense in execution. Thing is, they have an incredible universe at their disposal with this series. Unfortunately they didn't tap deeply into it at all. On top of the lack of compelling single player experience, you can not deny the technical problems of the game, not to mention that stupid anus level. And fuck the flood. That shit should've been left behind after CE lol.

deny the techinical problems? I assume you are talking about it being sub HD ? Or was there a whole host of other issues i'm missing?

[Ajemsuhgao]

But having one REALLY shitty flood level has pretty much become a Halo staple tradition now. 1,2 AND 3 had it. Only ODST didn't, and it was better offf for it.

Someone please explain to me why the Flood is so terrible.

"Everyone" hated The Library. I didn't mind it. The only downside I saw to that level, was that it was extremely repetitive. And surely that can't be why people hate it. I'd rather have some decently sized indoor or outdoor environment to play in, than something horribly linear like Floodgate(though, seeing the difference in that map, and the one before it was neat).

Cortana was far worse than The Library, though. But it still wasn't a "shitty" mission. I don't get what want, as far as Flood missions go. It seems like 90% of the Halo fanbase just doesn't want the Flood in the games at all, and I don't understand why.

[EazyB]

I bet Halo: Reach will be on two discs.

Hope so. MP on one with a robust level editor and the campaign on the other.

[xenorevlis]

Please name 5 games you think are better on a technical level(in terms of graphics) than Halo 3/ODST. EDIT: To be fair, 5 games on 360 that are better. 360 can't compete with PS3(NOT trolling here.)/PC

Ooh, these are fun!

1. Gears of War 1/2
2. Mass Effect 1/2
3. Viva Pinata
4. PGR4
5. Forza Motorsport 3
6. Banjo Kazooie Nuts & Bols

Hows that?

[Why For?]

It had some really shitty framerate problems. Usually I can look past them, but they were too prevalent at times for me even. Also, for the period of time I was playing, the online suffered from tremendous amounts of lag, disconnects, etc. This wasn't just the first couple days either, which is sad for a game of this stature. But yes, that is ONE feature that gives me hope with Reach, that it's before CE, and iirc from reading (i maybe wrong), the flood wasn't unleashed just yet. That shit was terrible. It should've been left ALL dead after CE.

Framerate? Were we playing the same Halo 3? The one I played was constant throughout.

And in terms of lag online, it hides better than any other game I've played online. Yes it has a BIT of it (and I'm from Australia, so we cop it the worst) but nothing major.

Only Perfect Dark Zero has better netcode.

But like I said:

• New graphics engine (CONFIRMED)
• New weapons that look really cool
• No flood
• Squad based play
• 5 player co-op?
• drop-in drop out co-op?
• Perks?

This already puts it above Halo 1, 2, 3 and ODST for me. It would have to play pretty shitty to be the inferior game at this point.

[Monocle]

I'm more annoyed that they decided not to update the engine than anything really.

It's an all new engine. Bungie has directly confirmed this, and now the evidence is right in front of you. If you can't perceive a major difference between Reach's graphics and those of the other Halo games, it might be because the screenshots you're looking at were taken with a phone-mounted point-and-click, not an IMAX camera.

Reach is a prequel, there should be tons of room for aesthetic changes. You're on a totally different planet in completely different circumstances than any of the locations in Halo 1-3. Sure, it's a little early to pass judgment, but being that we've seen so little of the game and it's less than a year away, and the first things to come out are the same old weapons, and the same old vehicles- I don't think that's very encouraging.

It's more than a little early to pass judgment. We've no idea about the context of those screenshots, but it's a safe bet Bungie will keep its freshest material tightly under wraps—that is, restricted to internal play testing.

I find it hard to believe you're actually complaining that two of Halo's most distinctive vehicles, the Warthog and the Banshee, are in Reach. No Halo game would be complete without them. You're far too hasty in taking the presence of staple weapons and vehicles in the screens as a bad sign. The logical progression of the design process would dictate that older stuff be brought up and running in the new engine before most of the newer stuff in order to provide the designers and testers with points of reference. When you're building an ambitious prequel, it helps to start with what you know.

And yeah, my concern extends to gameplay. If they're so adverse to taking any gambles with the visuals, then they're twice as likely to not touch the gameplay. Sure Halo's is good enough that it doesn't really demand to be changed, but the franchise is a decade old and odds are the game will play no differently than Halo 1, or 2, or 3, or ODST. You can pick up and play Halo 1 and the skillset you develop for it will undoubtedly prepare you to play Halo Reach with no problems. It's not like other major franchises don't take risks: GTA1-2 are significantly different from III/VC/SA, and GTA4 is alien to even those games. Super Mario 3 is wildly different from Mario 64 which is wildly different from Mario Galaxy, etc. Sure you can say "if it aint broke", but you run the risk of a series going stale by not taking chances with your formula and challenging its fans. I have the exact same problem with Zelda and I was making these same points in the year before Twilight Princess came out.

You're couching baseless assertions in the language of probability. It's not a terribly persuasive tactic. But let's set that aside for now. It appears you're interested in change for change's sake, which you ought to know is never a good reason to monkey around with a formula that works. As you rightly point out, the Halo formula doesn't demand complete revision. Indeed, in ODST we have a refined version of Halo 3's already polished recipe that illustrates just how far a handful of small changes can go. The minor tweaks to the controls and sandbox, combined with the larger shifts in atmosphere and narrative tone, add up to an experience more elegant and consistent than the game on which ODST is based. ODST really isn't all that different from Halo 3, but it feels incredibly novel. Based on how you lumped it in with the rest of the Halo games, I suspect you disagree. I'd be interested to hear why.

It's odd of you to appeal to the ambiguous threat of staleness as an argument for drastic change in Reach by providing examples whose contrast comes from natural technological progression as much as deliberate design innovation. If you want to see what can happen when technology isn't so much of a factor and designers run with the idea that different is better without respecting their game's history, look no further than Devil May Cry 2. Now think about some of the best sequels out there. Say, God of War 2, Half-Life 2 and COD4. All of these games resemble their predecessors a great deal, regardless of how many new systems or features they possess. The new elements work without stepping all over the old, and the result in each case is a great game that feels like a part of its series, only fuller and more satisfying than ever before. Miles away from the staleness you imply can only be staved off by hysterically hacking away at the core identity of a series then grafting on a hodgepodge of alien extremities until it looks suitably modern.

And since there are a ton of people in this very thread saying they are tired of Halo, my criticism should make sense.

Halo has always been orbited by a small but vocal pack of grumblers. You'll find most of them don't offer much justification for their antipathy for the series beyond token buzzwords like "stale" and "overrated." Constructive dissent can be valuable. Vague barbs are not constructive. I'd think twice before invoking that sort of company to lend weight to my opinion.

[bhlaab]

[img]http://i34.************/35374f8.png[/img]

Could've fooled me

[DCharlie]

Cortana was far worse than The Library, though. But it still wasn't a "shitty" mission. I don't get what want, as far as Flood missions go. It seems like 90% of the Halo fanbase just doesn't want the Flood in the games at all, and I don't understand why.

when the flood turns up the game gets flipped on its head and you're basically playing Halo Robotron rather than something that feels more organic and open.

I wont say that the Flood levels are great by any means, but i'm the same as you - i actually enjoyed them in Halo 3 and their appearance always gives you that "oh god no" feeling of dread: You know it's going to be tough, and it's an aspect that i felt was somewhat missing from ODST.

The new elements work without stepping all over the old

exactly - the strength of Halo (seemingly organic fights that never play out the same way twice proving endlessly different WTF! moments) suggest that the route to THE killer Halo experience is providing the exactly -right- balanced scenarios in interesting and varied environments. I quite enjoyed the hub world of ODST and a vastly expanded overworld-cum-sandbox Halo could really work (not played Borderlands yet!)

[Ajemsuhgao]

Ooh, these are fun! Gears of War 1/2 Mass Effect 1/2 Viva Pinata PGR4 Forza Motorsport 3 Banjo Kazooie Nuts & Bols Hows that?

An explanation of these choices would be nice.


Unreal engine is just fake shit. There's nothing technically amazing about Unreal. And Gears/Mass Effect are pretty crappy examples of the Unreal engine anyway. Honestly, the best looking game done on the Unreal engine has been Batman Arkham Asylum.

What makes Viva Pinata/Banjo technically better than Halo 3...? And I really see nothing special about PGR4 at all. Forza on the other hand has nice lighting, and texturing, but it's a racing game. If a racing game is ugly, something is wrong.

[Why For?]

It's an all new engine. Bungie has directly confirmed this, and now the evidence is right in front of you. If you can't perceive a major difference between Reach's graphics and those of the other Halo games, it might be because the screenshots you're looking at were taken with a phone-mounted point-and-click, not an IMAX camera. It's more than a little early to pass judgment. We've no idea about the context of those screenshots, but it's a safe bet Bungie will keep its freshest material tightly under wraps—that is, restricted to internal play testing. I find it hard to believe you're actually complaining that two of Halo's most distinctive vehicles, the Warthog and the Banshee, are in Reach. No Halo game would be complete without them. You're far too hasty in taking the presence of staple weapons and vehicles in the screens as a bad sign. The logical progression of the design process would dictate that older stuff be brought up and running in the new engine before most of the newer stuff in order to provide the designers and testers with points of reference. When you're building an ambitious prequel, it helps to start with what you know. You're couching baseless assertions in the language of probability. It's not a terribly persuasive tactic. But let's set that aside for now. It appears you're interested in change for change's sake, which you ought to know is never a good reason to monkey around with a formula that works. As you rightly point out, the Halo formula doesn't demand complete revision. Indeed, in ODST we have a refined version of Halo 3's already polished recipe that illustrates just how far a handful of small changes can go. The minor tweaks to the controls and sandbox, combined with the larger shifts in atmosphere and narrative tone, add up to an experience more elegant and consistent than the game on which ODST is based. ODST really isn't all that different from Halo 3, but it feels incredibly novel. Based on how you lumped it in with the rest of the Halo games, I suspect you disagree. I'd be interested to hear why. It's odd of you to appeal to the ambiguous threat of staleness as an argument for drastic change in Reach by providing examples whose contrast comes from natural technological progression as much as deliberate design innovation. If you want to see what can happen when technology isn't so much of a factor and designers run with the idea that different is better without respecting their game's history, look no further than Devil May Cry 2. Now think about some of the best sequels out there. Say, God of War 2, Half-Life 2 and COD4. All of these games resemble their predecessors a great deal, regardless of how many new systems or features they possess. The new elements work without stepping all over the old, and the result in each case is a great game that feels like a part of its series, only fuller and more satisfying than ever before. Miles away from the staleness you imply can only be staved off by hysterically hacking away at the core identity of a series then grafting on a hodgepodge of alien extremities until it looks suitably modern. Halo has always been orbited by a small but vocal pack of grumblers. You'll find most of them don't offer much justification for their antipathy for the series beyond token buzzwords like "stale" and "overrated." Constructive dissent can be valuable. Vague barbs are not constructive. I'd think twice before invoking that sort of company to lend weight to my opinion.

You're a star.

[ahoyhoy]

wait, what game has done 'online' better than Halo 3 on consoles?

Call of Duty 3.

One reason: Server browsing.

[Liabe Brave]

"Everyone" hated The Library. I didn't mind it. The only downside I saw to that level, was that it was extremely repetitive. And surely that can't be why people hate it.

That's certainly why I hate it. The first game's appeal came from its very explicit breaking from shooter conventions: you start with a bog-standard corridor crawl, but then they bust open the walls and give you open, emergent firefights with strong enemy AI. Follow this with sections which split between on-foot and driving, and the multiple tactical approaches that allies and terrain provide, and you've got exactly why the game developed such a strong following.

Then you're dumped into a really boring-looking grey metal corridor shooting millions of brain-dead aliens--it's like the design regresses a decade. Even worse, you get a lot of backtracking afterward. Fortunately, the game picks up steam again and has an ending almost as good as its beginning. But The Library really does come close to killing the fun entirely.

[Monocle]

You're a star.

If this is your way of trying to get in my pants, my answer is yes.

[BeEatNU]

How in the world did I miss this thread? Pics are too blurry. What's up with leakers these days? So unprofessional. [IMG]http://i34.************/51wk6f.jpg[/IMG]

I am also distracted by ya avatar.



when and why was she doing this?

[Major Williams]

After staring at a photo for awhile, I noticed something that lended some creed to the photos. If these aren't legit, this person spent an incredible amount of time detailing everything:
- AR that has original Halo 1 reticule (hopefully the same sound as well)
- the system that the UNSC has with the Credits, because it even denotes the symbol for it (cR)
- I've made some notations to the photo, and there is a 'grading' system as well.

[Talon]

It had some really shitty framerate problems. Usually I can look past them, but they were too prevalent at times for me even. Also, for the period of time I was playing, the online suffered from tremendous amounts of lag, disconnects, etc. This wasn't just the first couple days either, which is sad for a game of this stature. But yes, that is ONE feature that gives me hope with Reach, that it's before CE, and iirc from reading (i maybe wrong), the flood wasn't unleashed just yet. That shit was terrible. It should've been left ALL dead after CE.

Framerate problems? When? You can complain that the human modeling looked crappy or, I suppose, complain about the resolution, which, IMO, didn't really effect the experience, but when the heck were there framerate problems? I think I vaguely remember some on the last level, but I don't know if that would be described as "really shitty." Mass Effect 360's Benezia battle is the bar for "really shitty." :lol

The lack of Flood will be a huge improvement. Those levels have always been a crimp on Halo. The series has always suffered from some inconsistent level quality. The first couple levels are usually fantastic than it's hit by a painful midsection as a result of the Flood. Case in point, Halo 3 was great with the exception of the asshole hole level. Granted, I was disappointed at the time because we still didn't get that huge, open world experience that ad campaign told us to expect (again), but it had some great levels (Sierra 117, The Storm, The Ark, and The Covenant).

I thought I'd enjoy ODST a lot, but the game felt somewhat joyless to me. I usually rip through these games overnight (even if I have shit to do), but ODST took me 3 weeks to get through. Maybe that says something about me as a gamer now, but I just wasn't that excited to play the game after going through. I might have preferred a more linear progression of levels because that hub felt like a hassle. I hope Reach has more open areas like NMPD HQ, The Ark, or The Storm to a great degree.

[Ajemsuhgao]

That's certainly why I hate it. The first game's appeal came from its very explicit breaking from shooter conventions: you start with a bog-standard corridor crawl, but then they bust open the walls and give you open, emergent firefights with strong enemy AI. Follow this with sections which split between on-foot and driving, and the multiple tactical approaches that allies and terrain provide, and you've got exactly why the game developed such a strong following. Then you're dumped into a really boring-looking grey metal corridor shooting millions of brain-dead aliens--it's like the design regresses a decade. Even worse, you get a lot of backtracking afterward. Fortunately, the game picks up steam again and has an ending almost as good as its beginning. But The Library really does come close to killing the fun entirely.

But the open outdoor levels Bungie has put out, haven't really been all that great. I think the best open level, is Halo. It was open, but it presented you with actual freedom. Everything else is open, yes, but extremely linear. Take Halo 3's Sierra 117 mission. It was open, but confined to a single wide path. The Covenant, The Ark, Halo 1's Truth & Reconciliation, Assault on the Control Room, all were similar. Halo needs more "Halo" level design, and less Sierra 117.

[Monocle]

That's certainly why I hate it. The first game's appeal came from its very explicit breaking from shooter conventions: you start with a bog-standard corridor crawl, but then they bust open the walls and give you open, emergent firefights with strong enemy AI. Follow this with sections which split between on-foot and driving, and the multiple tactical approaches that allies and terrain provide, and you've got exactly why the game developed such a strong following. Then you're dumped into a really boring-looking grey metal corridor shooting millions of brain-dead aliens--it's like the design regresses a decade. Even worse, you get a lot of backtracking afterward. Fortunately, the game picks up steam again and has an ending almost as good as its beginning. But The Library really does come close to killing the fun entirely.

The more I play the level, the more I feel myself identifying with those insufferable Library apologists who find the repetitiveness an interesting change of pace. The Library is a tense gauntlet unlike anything else in the game. On Heroic or Legendary, it's kind of thrilling to run through those eerie gray spaces with Flood swarming at you from all sides, especially with a co-op partner.

[big ander]

But the open outdoor levels Bungie has put out, haven't really been all that great. I think the best open level, is Halo. It was open, but it presented you with actual freedom. Everything else is open, yes, but extremely linear. Take Halo 3's Sierra 117 mission. It was open, but confined to a single wide path. The Covenant, The Ark, Halo 1's Truth & Reconciliation, Assault on the Control Room, all were similar. Halo needs more "Halo" level design, and less Sierra 117.

Four amazing levels right there.

[Dax01]

But the open outdoor levels Bungie has put out, haven't really been all that great. I think the best open level, is Halo. It was open, but it presented you with actual freedom. Everything else is open, yes, but extremely linear. Take Halo 3's Sierra 117 mission. It was open, but confined to a single wide path. The Covenant, The Ark, Halo 1's Truth & Reconciliation, Assault on the Control Room, all were similar. Halo needs more "Halo" level design, and less Sierra 117.

Someone is hating on AotCR?

I'm at a loss.

[Blueblur1]

After staring at a photo for awhile, I noticed something that lended some creed to the photos. If these aren't legit, this person spent an incredible amount of time detailing everything: - AR that has original Halo 1 reticule (hopefully the same sound as well) - the system that the UNSC has with the Credits, because it even denotes the symbol for it (cR) - I've made some notations to the photo, and there is a 'grading' system as well.

I don't know if anyone has said this, but it's pretty obvious to me that the four bars by the radar are player gamertags and call signs.

[Darkpen]

Monocle's post is awesome.

Anyways, I just saw this thread, and the pics, and all I have to say is that the lighting engine is either really early, or unimpressive, but I'll stick with early. Definitely looks like a new engine though; there's something about that giant gun that makes it very un-Halo 3 engine.

But if there's one criticism to be had, and something that I dearly hope that is resolved in Reach's level design (I haven't played ODST, so no comment there), is that I hope that the environments don't feel so... utilitarian, for lack of a better word. Geometric, even, if that makes sense.

[Ajemsuhgao]

Four amazing levels right there.

I actually agree with you. But my point still stands. Though, now that I think about it, Truth & Reconciliation did have a few open areas, where you could actually go about the situation however you wanted, as did AotCR.

Someone is hating on AotCR? I'm at a loss.

No, not at all. Nowhere did I say the level was bad in any way. I was just pointing out that it was another open, but linear level. Which I then retracted, after thinking about it...

[xenorevlis]

An explanation of these choices would be nice.

Fake shit? Well if thas what you think than you're too stubborn to understand how games these days work. All that "real geometry" originally shown in Halo 3's preview is "fake shit" too. It's real models, but handled in a way most games handle huge vistas.

You simply asked for a list, so I typed one. If you think that Halo 3 looks better, then you're right.

[Talon]

But the open outdoor levels Bungie has put out, haven't really been all that great. I think the best open level, is Halo. It was open, but it presented you with actual freedom. Everything else is open, yes, but extremely linear. Take Halo 3's Sierra 117 mission. It was open, but confined to a single wide path. The Covenant, The Ark, Halo 1's Truth & Reconciliation, Assault on the Control Room, all were similar. Halo needs more "Halo" level design, and less Sierra 117.

I'd say what you're describing is Bungie's MO. They want you to know where to go almost immediately with short breaks of freedom.

I say what I want is those open areas, but what I actually want are set pieces where it feels like I'm part of a larger struggle, which the games haven't done that well. Levels like Truth Reconciliation, The Ark, Delta Halo (?), and The Covenant have those moments where you're in a wide area, but the objective's pretty explicit. That's what I really want to see more of.

Also, Sierra 117 is one of the series' best levels. It's as linear as any other level with the trademark high walls, but I love it.

[Liabe Brave]

The more I play the level, the more I feel myself identifying with those insufferable Library apologists who finds the repetitiveness an interesting change of pace. The Library is a tense gauntlet unlike anything else in the game. On Heroic or Legendary, it's kind of thrilling to run through those eerie gray spaces with Flood swarming at you from all sides, especially with a co-op partner.

I agree that it's different, and the singleminded "Kill 'em all! ...No, that's not all of 'em. ...Nope. ...Still going...." dreariness at least impresses on you why The Flood would be a bad enemy to have. But you could get that effect even if the level was half as long, in my book. If you find a way to enjoy it, more power to you.

[TheLOLMan]

I'm curious how you guys can discern a new or old engine from blurry-offscreen-downsized photos.

The background texture....

[Dax01]

[img]http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs008.snc3/11537_324540340726_540780726_9649607_2929752_n.jpg[/i The background texture....

User name is appropriate.

[Bo]

Someone please explain to me why the Flood is so terrible.

There aren't enough laughing smilies in the world.

- Insanely repetitive (The same floor was basically pasted four times into the level with minor alterations).

- Dull (Dark, barely any light, basically nonexistent art beyond beveled blocks and halls).

- Shitty encounters (Flood being summoned by monster tubes, reuse of the same "wait here while dozens of Flood attack" encounter).

- Shitty playing spaces (Other Flood levels in the series will show you why)

- The Library revelled in being unfun, in being tortuous.

- The Library is one of the most transparently linear levels in the entire series. There's no effort in even trying to hide it.

+ This blurb I wrote in my RTTP thread a while ago:

Where 343 Guilty Spark dazzled us with atmosphere, The Library dazzled us with failure. Ugh. The series' best Flood level was immediately followed up by its absolute worst (Face it, Cortana wasn't this bad). Near the start that little blue lightbulb feels it necessary to tell us that this big door we've just reached is one of ten. The first time around, I thought he was kidding. Oh, how I was wrong. Not only will you see this same door again, you'll see the same corner, the same tunnel, the same elevator, the same entire floor again. I lose count every time of how many virtually identical floors this level contains, but it's irrelevant, it's just too much blatant copy-pastework. It's absolutely inane amounts of filler, and what makes it worse is that it isn't fun. Took the idea of a hellish level too damn far. I never want to see its monster closets Flood tubes, elevators, and big doors ever again.

The Library is the worst level Bungie has ever produced as far as I'm concerned. It's a mistake, a blemish.

[big ander]

The background texture....

1)[IMG]http://i34.************/35374f8.png[/IMG]
2) The textures are not what they put in first, as has been stated at least 3 or 4 times in this very thread. Stop clogging up the discussion with restatements of false assertions.

User name is appropriate.

Agreed.

[Ajemsuhgao]

I say what I want is those open areas, but what I actually want are set pieces where it feels like I'm part of a larger struggle, which the games haven't done that well. Levels like Truth Reconciliation, The Ark, Delta Halo (?), and The Covenant have those moments where you're in a wide area, but the objective's pretty explicit. That's what I really want to see more of. Also, Sierra 117 is one of the series' best levels. It's as linear as any other level with the trademark high walls, but I love it.

That's the one thing that I think I miss the most from Halo 1.


In Halo, it was pretty much you vs them. Whoever they were. Covenant, Flood, didn't matter, the point is you were basically alone. The marines you had weren't really going to stick around long, and everything felt better that way. You were a Spartan, but could still be outnumbered.

In Halo 2/3, you were far too much of a tank. And you almost always had marine buddies to help you out. It felt too easy. There was really nothing to worry about. In ODST, they kind of captured the alone feeling again, in the Mombasa Streets sections, but it still didn't quite feel like it did in Halo 1.

[Why For?]

The gun models alone make it pretty obvious it's a new engine.

But then again, I would have figured the confirmation by Bungie would have already done that job.

This is GAF?

[CrazedArabMan]

The background texture....

Because we know Bungie is going to leave that as the background texture.

[PSGames]

Could've fooled me

Get your eyes checked. Are people forgetting what Halo 3 looked like? This is a HUGE improvement.

[Ajemsuhgao]

The gun models alone make it pretty obvious it's a new engine. But then again, I would have figured the confirmation by Bungie would have already done that job. This is GAF?

No..the gun models make it pretty obvious that there's new gun models. The lighting and shaders make it obvious it's a new engine. It's not like the Halo 3 engine couldn't have the guns in those screens.

[TheLOLMan]

1)[IMG]http://i34.************/35374f8.png[/IMG] 2) The textures are not what they put in first, as has been stated at least 3 or 4 times in this very thread. Stop clogging up the discussion with restatements of false assertions. Agreed.

Fair enough, I am not much of a "game designer" myself. I just hope the final product have better texture and environment design like gears of wars or uncharted 2. You know...abit more natural, instead of feeling like walking in a square box all the time.

[TheLOLMan]

Because we know Bungie is going to leave that as the background texture.

They were saying the same thing for Halo 3...it's just placeholder, it's just a placeholder. The final game will look better.

When halo 3 release.....:/

[AnIco]

So...three years after the launch of Halo 3 (when Reach will release), and an insane budget later...and this is what we get? I know it's early, but it looks like it's using the same engine as Halo 3, and that game looked like a slightly higher resolution version of Halo 2 (still not quite in HD, either).

Pretty disappointing, especially with how easy it is to apparently extract the power of the 360. Shame that the best developer in your stable working exclusively for the platform can't seem to harness it all that well.

It's getting really hard to get excited about another Halo release as time goes on. Not sure if the perks additions will give the series enough to really give it the jolt it desperately needs, but I'm looking forward to hearing/seeing more.