Post by legios on Jul 14, 2014 19:39:15 GMT
...is a really cool guy and kills all the covenants...
Now, having got the ritual reference/joke out of the way onto the meat of the thread...
It occurred to me at the weekend that, of the five Halo games I have played, my two favourites - and the two I have played more than any of the others - are the two games not to feature John-117 or Cortana... I've been analysing that and I have come to the conclusion that it is because the two that I really enjoy ("Halo: Reach" and "Halo 3: ODST) are structurally quite different to the others.
"ODST" has its semi open-world hub of New Mombassa at night, and I really enjoy skulking around to the blues/Jazz score, and the opportunity to use stealth and timing to avoid contact with the Covenant forces. The flashback sections of the game are also perfect little bite-sized chunks of Halo gameplay - there's a run-and-gun level, a tank level, a Warthog level and so on. And all of them are short enough that they don't need huge investments of time to enjoy which appeals to me these days.
"Reach" in turn makes some changes to the usual Halo narrative - rather than cast the player as a lone Combat Badass who is all that stands between the whole universe and destruction it makes you the low man on the totem pole. Sure, Noble Six is a SPARTAN-III and therefore a tough combat monster but you are thrown in with a squad of nominally equally capable SPARTANs who see aren't immediately that warm to you. The game does a nice job both of constantly escalating the threat and creating a sense of fighting for every step backwards in a losing battle, and setting up Noble Team as actual characters to fight alongside in a way that Halo hadn't really done before. And then it steadily takes them away when you have become used to them fighting alongside you.
There is one other important reason that I like these better than the "core" Halo games. Neither of them feature the Flood. I've never found the Flood particularly compelling as video-game enemies go. To me they just seem like zombies with guns, and I don't find zombies very interesting. (Actually, they remind me very much of far less creepy versions of the Annelid infested humans in "System Shock 2". Their tendency to just rush forward and try to shove you into a corner so they can pummel you to death is very, very irritating).
(Halo 3 also helped to solidify my distaste for the Flood with one level - the one were you go inside the Body of the Many...er, I mean the Flood infested High Charity. Not only does it commit just about every possible sin of First Person Shooter level design but it seems to go on forever, and adds insult to injury by continually hijacking your controls to force you to listen to some truly awful dialogue/ranting from either Cortana or the Gravemind... If I didn't already dislike the Flood, guilt by association would have thoroughly tainted them by the end of that).
Like I say, just a random passing thought (and I've been on-line a long while, my AI core may well be starting to ramble and show signs of rampancy...)
Karl
Now, having got the ritual reference/joke out of the way onto the meat of the thread...
It occurred to me at the weekend that, of the five Halo games I have played, my two favourites - and the two I have played more than any of the others - are the two games not to feature John-117 or Cortana... I've been analysing that and I have come to the conclusion that it is because the two that I really enjoy ("Halo: Reach" and "Halo 3: ODST) are structurally quite different to the others.
"ODST" has its semi open-world hub of New Mombassa at night, and I really enjoy skulking around to the blues/Jazz score, and the opportunity to use stealth and timing to avoid contact with the Covenant forces. The flashback sections of the game are also perfect little bite-sized chunks of Halo gameplay - there's a run-and-gun level, a tank level, a Warthog level and so on. And all of them are short enough that they don't need huge investments of time to enjoy which appeals to me these days.
"Reach" in turn makes some changes to the usual Halo narrative - rather than cast the player as a lone Combat Badass who is all that stands between the whole universe and destruction it makes you the low man on the totem pole. Sure, Noble Six is a SPARTAN-III and therefore a tough combat monster but you are thrown in with a squad of nominally equally capable SPARTANs who see aren't immediately that warm to you. The game does a nice job both of constantly escalating the threat and creating a sense of fighting for every step backwards in a losing battle, and setting up Noble Team as actual characters to fight alongside in a way that Halo hadn't really done before. And then it steadily takes them away when you have become used to them fighting alongside you.
There is one other important reason that I like these better than the "core" Halo games. Neither of them feature the Flood. I've never found the Flood particularly compelling as video-game enemies go. To me they just seem like zombies with guns, and I don't find zombies very interesting. (Actually, they remind me very much of far less creepy versions of the Annelid infested humans in "System Shock 2". Their tendency to just rush forward and try to shove you into a corner so they can pummel you to death is very, very irritating).
(Halo 3 also helped to solidify my distaste for the Flood with one level - the one were you go inside the Body of the Many...er, I mean the Flood infested High Charity. Not only does it commit just about every possible sin of First Person Shooter level design but it seems to go on forever, and adds insult to injury by continually hijacking your controls to force you to listen to some truly awful dialogue/ranting from either Cortana or the Gravemind... If I didn't already dislike the Flood, guilt by association would have thoroughly tainted them by the end of that).
Like I say, just a random passing thought (and I've been on-line a long while, my AI core may well be starting to ramble and show signs of rampancy...)
Karl
