Quantcast Halo | Vagary.TV

Halo Archive

1

Halo Anniversary Single-Player Preview

By
Magnus Risebro
– August 19, 2011Posted in: Previews, Xbox 360

It’s no secret that Halo: Combat Evolved shaped the 21st Century shooter. Just one year before Halo’s launch, Perfect Dark was the finest example of a console FPS. It says something that a decade later, Halo remains as playable as it was in 2001; while Perfect Dark feels like it should be locked away in the 90’s Nostalgia-closet right alongside Spice Girls and Rugrats. Halo still feels fresh because most contemporary shooters still have it to thank for elements we take for granted nowadays. Recharging health, the grenade-button, and being limited to two weapons are just a few highlights in Halo’s legacy.

The announcement of Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary at E3 this year surprised no-one, it was an apt time for a remake, and it would ensure Xboxers aren’t left with a Spartan-free year before the launch of Halo 4 in 2012.

I was recently given a behind-closed doors demonstration of the game that, while hands-off only, gave me some insight into the finer details of the remake. Like previously announced by 343, Anniversary’s campaign does not run on the Reach engine, but on a modified version of the original Combat Evolved engine. This is either a disappointment or a relief depending on your level of nostalgia for the original. 343 Executive Producer Dan Ayoub was quick to justify this decision to me, arguing that it ensures the game feels the way it did back then, but I’m personally skeptical.

Halo’s AI, enemy numbers, and general combat model has improved greatly with later iterations.  It was almost a shame that Reach’s impeccable combat was wasted on a campaign that, while entertaining, did not match earlier Halo games in terms of pacing, narrative and atmosphere. Playing through Combat Evolved’s campaign, which for my money is the best in the series, with Reach’s near-perfect combat would have been a dream come true. As it is, animation, enemy-behaviour, as well as the number of enemies will be identical to that of Halo:CE. It seems, ironically, combat has not evolved.

Having said that, using the old engine does allow for a rather cool, and much-touted, feature: The ability to switch between the old and new at any point. In classic mode, the game looks exactly like it did ten years ago, albeit running in lovely widescreen. But at the touch of a button, foliage, sharper textures, shaders, and other snazzy effects are painted into the world.

This was beautifully shown off in the demonstration, where I was presented a personal favorite level: 343 Guilty Spark. Starting off in classic mode, the demo took us through the opening stages of the murky swamp, which looked good… or so I thought until it switched to the new graphics. Suddenly glowing, “Avatar-esque” foliage was everywhere. The rather unconvincing, jarring fogginess of the original level was replaced by a smooth haze, and the once-flat textures popped with new detail and strengthened color.

Halo:CE:A looks good. Not just in comparison to the original, but by the standards of the competition. Sure, the polygon-count and texture-resolution of the environments might not quite match the most technically advanced of games, but Halo’s ever-brilliant art direction makes up for that tenfold.

The final, and perhaps most interesting point of the presentation was the terminals. When playing in the new mode, one will be able to access terminals that function much like those of Halo 3, relaying exposition to the player. However, the terminals in Anniversary have a crucial difference: Instead of scrolling blocks of cryptic text (that would frustratingly disappear before one finished reading it), the terminals now present slickly-edited videos. I was shown the first one of these terminals, which depicted The Monitor warning The Pillar of Autumn crew to not approach Halo, then, as he assumably discovers humans are the descendants of the Forerunners, welcoming them. According to Dan Ayoub, these terminals will also hint towards events of Halo 4, something I’m sure fans of Halo’s fiction will appreciate.

There are too many remakes nowadays. From HD re-releases to “ultimate” editions of already-released games (I’m looking at you, Capcom), I’m sure we can all agree there’s too little fresh blood in the mainstream tier of videogames. Despite this, it’s hard to complain when you’re getting an oldie (a decade is old, right?) as good as Halo, refurbished as well as this. I wait eagerly for November 15th.

0

Bungie Remembers 20 years and Hints at Next Game

By
VTV Staff
– July 12, 2011Posted in: News

Bungie celebrates their 20th anniversary by releasing a open letter to fans. The developer says goodbye to their popular flagship series Halo, stating that it is in good hands with the players and by extension 343 Studios. Appreciating the fact that the players have remained dedicated to the long running franchise, they ask that players to remain faithful to the series — even with the new developers.

“Halo is yours now. In many ways, it always has been. Its new caretakers will strive, just as we did, to be worthy stewards but you have the package. Hold these characters and stories and worlds to the same unflinching standards you did while we were at the helm, but allow them all to blossom and change and grow in the ways that they must.”

Announcing release of a tribute video”O Brave New Worlds”, the studio teases that they will undergo a metamorphosis of their own, proclaiming Bungie.Net will change with their next project.

“Afterwards, we’ll be going dark on our studio’s next major endeavor – the creation of a brand new universe… So, this isn’t a goodbye. It isn’t The End. Instead, it’s the very beginning of a new journey that will stretch the limits of what we are capable of.”

The rumor mill has been churning out many hints to their next project, but Bungie has been tight lipped as to what it specifically is. Popular sources say that it’s Project Destiny: a sci-fi FPS MMO that Bungie is toiling away on with their new publisher Activision. What do you guys think it is that they are working on, and what do you want to see from Bungie next?

1

El Jeffe’s Lounge: Is Duke Really That Bad?

By
Jeff Derrickson
– July 6, 2011Posted in: Blogs

Before Duke Nukem Forever finally released, I went out on a limb and said I’d buy it regardless of the reviews.  I’ve now beaten it and suffered through numerous multiplayer matches, and I feel enough time has passed that I’ve digested the game and am ready to share my thoughts on it.  Put simply, it’s a bad game, but it’s not quite as bad as critics would lead you to believe.  The reviews were negative to the point of grandstanding, and there were widely cited flaws with which I disagree. 

 

The game has obvious problems, and on many points, I can’t argue with the critics.  The tech (specifically the graphics and enemy A.I.) is embarrassingly dated.  The interactivity is not as deep as advertised, and the mini-games are garbage.  The load times are frequent and ridiculous.  The multiplayer is downright abysmal, a limp, laggy, tacked-on afterthought with poor mechanics.  As Charles Onyett stated in his review, it just feels old.  As a joke, I played it throughout the recording of an entire podcast, and there was not an ounce of fun had in the whole two hours.  The game is uncomfortably misogynistic.  It also inexplicably adopts modern shooter conventions that it didn’t need to, and in one instance, it hurts the game.  I can live with the regenerating “ego meter,” but was there any reason to only allow Duke to carry two weapons at a time?  It’s a step back from the full arsenal of weapons you could cycle through in Duke Nukem 3D that hinders the freedom (and fun) of the combat.  A simple weapon wheel is all the innovation that was needed.  The underwater level near the end also kind of sucked.  But that’s probably where my agreement with the critics ends.  I think IGN’s score of 5.5 is fair and accurate, although I had more fun with the campaign than that score suggests.

 

One of the strangest complaints is that the game mocks other (better) games while simultaneously copying those games’ mechanics.  I don’t think Duke Nukem Forever should have copied Halo’s two-weapon limit, but I don’t see any inherent problem with copying Halo and poking a little fun at the series.  I honestly think critics misread that humor/parody as disdain for games like Halo and Half Life when it was clearly meant as loving homage.  After all, if the jokes were meant to be serious jabs at other series, why would the game use the mechanics it is mocking?  The “power armor is for pussies” line gave me one of the biggest smiles in the whole game.  I also enjoyed when Duke said, “I hate valve puzzles,” and it didn’t confuse or insult me when I was forced to do a simple valve puzzle afterward.  I don’t know why it bothers me so much that critics missed the point of these jokes, but it’s probably because it seems so obvious to me that they weren’t meant to be serious.  Condescendingly pointing out that the game borrows from the games it mocks is less clever than most of the humor in the game, and that’s saying a lot.

 

I will agree that Duke would work better if the humor was still crude but more self-conscious.  It would be great if Duke was presented as a sad relic of a forgotten time instead of this alpha male we’re supposed to think is cool.  It would be much funnier if only Duke thought he was cool.  The developers could get away with just as much raunchy humor, but it would work better.  And please, there could still be “babes,” but tone down the misogyny.

 

More troubling than the misread homage, the majority of critics attacked the game for having variety and not being a straightforward shooter.  They argued that Duke should be all about shooting and blowing stuff up.  This is the same kind of false, fuzzy nostalgia that plagues the Sonic the Hedgehog series when people say things like, “Sonic is supposed to be all about speed!”  Go back and play the Genesis Sonics; speed was a major factor, but there were also breaks in the speed with more traditional platforming and clever level design.  Go back and play Duke Nukem 3D.  It was a cutting-edge parody of the best shooters of its time, such as Doom and Wolfenstein 3D.  Yes, you shot stuff, but the levels were also sprawling mazes with secrets, dead-ends, and keys all over the place.  It was just as much about exploring as it was shooting.  Duke Nukem Forever is a decent parody of the best shooters of its time.  It just arrived 10 years too late.  Its time was 2001, but I kind of miss how shooters weren’t always so streamlined and focused shooting galleries back then.

 

Critics smugly pointed out that half the game was filled with all these elements you don’t see often in modern shooters because they just don’t work all that well.  Really?  I love the non-shooting portions of the game.  For me, they were the most interesting and enjoyable parts of it.  There are enough shooters out there without them.  Don’t take away my driving, platforming, and physics puzzles.  Critics didn’t necessarily knock these elements for being poorly done; they knocked them for existing at all.  If there is another Half Life, will they bash it for having physics puzzles?  If there is another Metroid Prime, will they once again claim that platforming doesn’t work in first-person shooters?  Will Rage lose points for featuring prominent driving segments, including a vehicle-based multiplayer?  I doubt it, but it would be consistent with how they bashed Duke Nukem Forever for straying from the Call of Duty mold.  The driving, platforming, and puzzles made Duke Nukem Forever a throwback rarity.  It made the game worth playing, at least for me.  There is a level titled “Duke Burger,” in which you platform around a fast food restaurant as a miniaturized Duke, and for my time and money, it was easily the most satisfying level in the game.  I’d like to see more levels like that in a sequel.  Anything but a straightforward run-and-gun shooter; I have plenty of options for that.

 

People who thought the game would be great are crazy.  Assuming it would be great because it spent more than a decade in development is as foolish as thinking a movie will be better for length.  I expected to Duke Nukem Forever to be flawed and dated, but some of its perceived flaws I found to be strengths.  If you think you might enjoy it despite its flaws, it is worth playing.  If your curiosity is gnawing at you, it’s worth playing as a fascinating study of what can happen to a game in development hell. 

 

Critics not only lobbed strange, lazy complaints against the game, but they attacked it for daring to be anything but a standard shooter in an increasingly crowded standard shooter market.  Given the chance, I bet some of these critics could make a more technically-sound game, but I doubt it would be as varied, or interesting.

0

Playing Along

By
Magnus Risebro
– June 1, 2011Posted in: Blogs, Magnus' Blog, Staff Blogs

Here’s a story:

John Marston, old-west-dwelling, sympathetic criminal, rides into a desert town on his beautiful, brown stallion. Looking around, he spies people feeding chickens, hanging by the saloon, and generally behaving in an authentically old-western manner. Marston has been forced by the FBI to track down his once-fellow gang members and bring them in, dead or alive. Not having much regard for the authorities, whom he views as no different from the criminals they prosecute save for a badge, he has grudgingly embarked on his mission in the hopes of one day being able to live peacefully with his family, away from his old life of crime.

Marston is a man who has long grown weary of violence and chaos. Yet, for some reason or other, he suddenly decides to jump off his stallion, pull out his revolver, and empty it into the leg of a random hooker he passes by. The prostitute falls to the ground, bleeding from six holes in her leg. Then he  looks through his extensive arsenal, switches the six-shooter for a Molotov cocktail, and hurls it into the aforementioned saloon, setting the piano player inside on fire. Why?

Because Rockstar San Diego wanted to build an expansive world were all was possible, and because Joe Gamer wanted to see what the “NPC on fire” animation was like. But John Marston’s spontaneous killing-sprees have no place in Red Dead’s riveting tale of heavy themes and three-dimensional characters. The possibility is there, but you’re not supposed to utilize it.

It’s a dilemma in game-design: Feature killable civilians, and risk spoiling the intended narrative experience, or disable the player from killing civilians, and possibly stretch the suspension of disbelief too far. A big part of open-world games such as Red Dead’s appeal is the sense of a living, breathing world you can impact freely. Innocent people having a magical resistance to bullets has the potential to completely shatter this feeling.

In some cases, doing things in-game that are detrimental to the atmosphere even benefit the player. Need some quick bucks in Red Dead? Gun down a few shop-owners and collect the winnings. It kills the mood, but it helps you “win”. The issue of having to “play along” with the game to properly enjoy it is not exclusive to open-world titles either: Take those “epic” moments in Halo, when the orchestral score kicks into full gear and gruff-voiced marines shout “GO GO GO!”, getting you swept up in the moment and making you want to run heroically into the enemy’s plasma fire, despite that being a tactic sure to get you swiftly murdered.

But somehow, hiding behind a rock and carefully sniping away at the enemy forces is not appealing when sweeping melodies and thumping war-drums are booming out of the speakers. The game is pulling you in different directions; you want to experience an emotionally powerful moment, but you also have an urge to win, and having to retry due to a failed attempt will no doubt ruin the mood just as staring at rock-texture will. It’s a paradox that pops up far too often in games.

May I suggest not enjoying this awe-inspiring vista?

 

As of now, the only apparent solution to the problem is restricting the player and forcing the emotion, atmosphere and narrative down his throat. Some games do, and oftentimes the result will be criticisms of being dumbed-down, overly linear, boring or a similarly negative adjective.

Is it right for developers to expect the player abides by unspoken, unenforced rules to enjoy their intended experience? Is it by the game or the player’s error that Niko Bellic shotgunning his girlfriend on date is awfully out of tune with the rest of GTA IV’s plot?
In L.A. Noire, you can’t even draw your gun when the game doesn’t want you to. And it’s your fault,gamers. Much like Red Dead Redemption’s protagonist, your past crimes are coming back to haunt you. There had to be consequences for all those hookers brutally put to sleep by the grill of your car.

1

Halo Reach Review

By
Magnus Risebro
– October 8, 2010Posted in: Reviews, Xbox 360

From its beginnings as the title that made snobby PC gamers run out to buy an Xbox, to being home to a cliffhanger enraging millions, to impossibly long midnight-launch queues, the Halo series has taken the gaming world by one hell of a decade-long storm. The mere thought of the word “Xbox” brings to mind countless hours spent shooting cartoony aliens in colorful environments while an immensely epic musical score plays. So with Halo: Reach being the final Halo game developed by Bungie, expectations have been extremely high.

You can bet your shiny green cyborg ass that Microsoft will milk the HaloCow until PETA arrives, but as far as most fans are considered, this is the final true Halo game. So having completed it and played a healthy dose of multiplayer, I can say that expectations have almost been met. Let me explain myself:

Halo Reach is a prequel story, taking place during the Battle of Reach, which people familiar with Halo canon will know does not end favorably for the good guys. This is where the problems with Reach start; it is almost impossible to tell a prequel story after that story´s end has been depicted, and still have it matter as much to the audience as the conclusion. And with the almost unfair amount of hype Reach has been getting, the lack of attachment will surely leave some fans disappointed. It would be far more fitting to place the “defining” Halo, which is what Bungie have been touting this as, at the climax of the trilogy. Unfortunately, as they are not in possession of a time-machine, that was impossible from the start of Reach´s development.

Still, Bungie could have side-stepped this issue by making it a character-driven story in the vein of Mass Effect 2. Could have, in fact, it seems like they tried to, seeing as you spend the majority of the game with your squad of Spartan super-soldiers. But throughout the eight-hour playtime these characters were rarely more than clichés. I knew them mostly by the colors of their armor, as the few attempts to personify them were shallow and half-hearted. One example is the depiction some seemingly close relationship between one  squadmate and your female superior. This is only brought up about two times, and never elaborated on, and is thus insufficient as a means to make us care for that character. In the end, their personas boil down to: Cool-headed commander, chick with unidentified accent and robo-arm, sniper dude with russian accent, big dude with british accent, and badass with skull carved on helmet.

Even towards the end when (spoiler alert) they were getting killed off left and right, I felt little for them.

Now, those two paragraphs of negativity might fool you into thinking Halo: Reach is something less than brilliant, is not the case. Because the Halo series have never been about telling an intricate story, but rather to give you a feeling of absolute epic-ness, and this Reach achieves with success. Even with it seldom having the kind of high-concept set-pieces of Halo 3 (i.e., the dual scarab fight), it does not hurt the game, as the core combat gameplay far surpasses that of any other Halo game, and is some of the best ever seen in a shooter. Weapons are now balanced to near perfection, and much like in Combat Evolved, they all have their distinct uses. Ultimately, none of the guns feel cheap, they all require time to master.

Also, almost all annoying or boring gameplay elements have either been made less so or dropped entirely. For example, beige zombie onions are nowhere to be found here. And the few times you run into the frustrating drones, you get to shoot them in the face to make them explode. Brilliant!

So despite the slightly disappointing story, Reach´s campaign is an engaging experience that seldom, if ever, drops in quality. Or intensity for that matter. In fact, one could argue it is a little one-note. ODST shifted elegantly between quiet, atmospheric moments and all-out action, whereas Reach focuses entirely on the latter. Still, the sheer quality and dynamic possibilities of the combat, as well as the relatively short running time, ensures this never becomes a real problem.

But for all the fun of playing through Reach on your own, the Co-op is where the campaign really comes alive. Go on live with three buddies and you realize that large sections of planet Reach seem to have been designed for cooperative play. Positioning of flanking-routes, enemies, weapons and vehicles all lend themselves to playing with other people. Bungie also made it so that your rank up even when playing campaign, as well as featuring your customized armor. These two things add a lot of incentive to keep playing the campaign after completion, something missing from pretty much all FPS games.

Of course, despite all the greats of Reach´s campaign, multiplayer is what people really will pump hours into. And I´m happy to say that the multiplayer here betters that of any other Halo. Having said that, there are very few drastic changes to the “Strafe-Jump-Shoot-Throw grenades” formula. The biggest change is the option to select loadouts, which pack in so-called armor abilities. With this change, Halo Reach becomes a sort of class-based-shooter-lite. The abilities range from Jetpack, to bubble shield, to invisibility, and so on.

These additions to the gameplay were hardly needed, but still add exciting unpredictability, especially in some of the new multiplayer modes featured. When you are unsure if the guy coming towards you could suddenly drop a shield around himself or fly off in a jetpack things can get pretty tense.

Also, Firefight makes a return from ODST, albeit in a slightly refined form. Now both customizable and playable in matchmaking, Firefight is still good fun, and stands up well in the sea of similar modes featured in other shooters.

Lastly, there is what might be my personal favorite aspect of the game, namely Forge. The mode first featured in Halo 3 has now been taken to an impressive extent, offering near-unimaginable possibilities for detailed map creation. Restrictions and freedoms have been adjusted exactly right, meaning getting your idea out there is – a few control niggles aside – never frustrating. It might not give you as many possibilities as a “proper” PC map editor, but blows all competition out of the insta-drown-videogame-water in terms of accessibility and ultimately, fun. You´ll know what I mean once you see my infinite-fall-with-landmines-map.

The Umbrella-style evil corporation of Activision might have a ten-year contract with Bungie, and Microsoft will probably be releasing Halo-Kart next year, but Reach, for all it´s flaws on the campaign side of things, will surely be remembered as a great game bringing a generation of great games full circle. This is where you finish the fight.

5 out of 5.