LogFAQs > #946725016

Final Analysis: Halo: Reach
What I thought of Reach: Underwhelming
Would I play it again? Probably not
Did it deserve to make Round 2? No IMO

Halo: Combat Evolved was a landmark title, not just for the FPS genre but for gaming as a whole. It deserves a major share in the credit for the original XBOX's success and the rise of online for consoles, to say nothing of how it modernized its own genre.

But I can't shake the feeling that the series has kind of stagnated since then. The launch of Halo 2 was a big cultural event, as far as those things go, but it didn't bring the kind of genre-shaking innovation of the first game - the series was already starting to seem iterative. Playing Reach, there weren't really any jaw-dropping moments that made me think "This could never have happened in Halo 1."

Reach is the best shooter I've played for this project so far. It benefits a lot from more dynamic enemy A.I. in comparison to something like Mass Effect 2 or Red Dead. In either of those games, the enemy sit behind their cover and occasionally pop up and down like targets at a shooting gallery. The enemies in Halo will dodge grenades, retreat when their shields drop or their allies die, run around to get the drop on you, and strafe to avoid shots. Instead of sticking yourself to cover all day long you run and jump to make yourself a harder target while simultaneously aiming precise shots. It's still not quite Doom: sometimes you have to hide behind a rock until your health regenerates, but it was fun enough to write about. I found it easy to pick out highlights from any given level. It was also rewarding to learn my way around the game. I felt a certain satisfaction easily taking down Elites in the late levels when they had given me such pause early on. My main criticism of the gameplay is that the ammo management can be a bit of a pain, mainly because I don't like most of the weapons. The way the Covenant guns sound and feel doesn't sit right with me and it was rare to find great uses for options like the pistol and shotgun.

What let me down was the story. Like I said earlier, I think this game had a good opportunity to tell a gripping, emotionally powerful story. The slow death of the Noble Team as Reach gets overrun has that kind of potential, it's just that none of the characters get much development. They have minimal screentime and don't really show emotions - they can watch their friends die and then just kind of shrug and soldier on. I find that boring! It certainly makes it difficult to care about what happens to them.

Of course, not all video games need to tell a great story. You won't see me criticizing Mario for lacking a complex plot (unless I'm trying to justify my nostalgia for Galaxy 1,) because I'm happy to let games just be games, as it were. Reach isn't trying to do that, though. It dedicates plenty of time and effort to cutscenes, lore, dialog writing, and voice acting. All that dedication ends up mostly wasted on such a fundamentally dull narrative.

Looking back on them both, I wouldn't hesitate to say I prefer Mass Effect 2 over Reach. Maybe that says more about my taste than the two games. I think, more than anything else, I'm interested in video games as a young medium for telling stories, and although Reach's epilogue does make use of the form, it's definitely not the sort of thing I'm looking for.

---

I'm playing every game from GotD 2020! Games Completed: 9/129
Currently Playing: Halo: Reach