Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary

Retr0gamer

Zeouterlimits wrote: »

I would be in your boat regarding MGS & MGS4 (roll on HD Collection!), but I find you commenting on the maps and how they'd work in Reach without being
a) Clued in
b) Having played them
a bit odd.

I wasn't making a statement, sorry if it came across like that (it kind of did).

Retr0gamer

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I posted a review here, I'm under no illusions that it's quite sparse and I could have gone into a lot more detail, but I felt the game deserved a more balanced review, with focus on other elements rather then SP, as well as focusing on several positive aspects of the game I believe outweigh the bad. I purposely did not give it a specific score in my review, instead people can draw from it what they want, but I do consider it worthy of something above 2/5 which undermines all it can offer to both fans and new comers alike.

Nice review, although I'm more inclined to point out the negatives in a game even if it is nitpicking. However that leads to people thinking I hate a game when I criticise it.

CramCycle

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I posted a review here, I'm under no illusions that it's quite sparse and I could have gone into a lot more detail, but I felt the game deserved a more balanced review, with focus on other elements rather then SP, as well as focusing on several positive aspects of the game I believe outweigh the bad. I purposely did not give it a specific score in my review, instead people can draw from it what they want, but I do consider it worthy of something above 2/5 which undermines all it can offer to both fans and new comers alike.

Good review, the only thing I would disagree on is the MP, if it handles like Reach and not Halo CE, then is it not akin to just buying two different games? One thing I know a few people use SP for is to get used to the mechanics before going onto MP but in this case it would seem akin to playing MW3 SP to upskill yourself for BF3. A drastic example but I hope you see where i am coming from. I think it would be worth mentioning the differences in handling if noticeable ie they are different (but similar games). Or am I wrong here, haven't played Reach in awhile.

Zeouterlimits

CramCycle wrote: »

Good review, the only thing I would disagree on is the MP, if it handles like Reach and not Halo CE, then is it not akin to just buying two different games? One thing I know a few people use SP for is to get used to the mechanics before going onto MP but in this case it would seem akin to playing MW3 SP to upskill yourself for BF3. A drastic example but I hope you see where i am coming from. I think it would be worth mentioning the differences in handling if noticeable ie they are different (but similar games). Or am I wrong here, haven't played Reach in awhile.

They released a Title Update for Reach in September with the aim of enabling more "Classic" Halo play.
So now, in Reach, there exist "Anniversary" playlists that have features like

0%/reduced bloom in the weapons.
3 shot pistol (it is a wonderous monster now).
Some other stuff

As someone very disappointed in Reach, who stopped playing multi, for many reasons, it's been a big boost.

---

In case it seems like I'm only praising Anniversary and one thinks I'm some crazy fanboy -
the game is flawed. In many un-acceptable ways.
-Art Style changes
-Campaign Netcode
-No C.E. multiplayer
-Pop-in
-Character models, Keyes in particular

But there is a lot to like there like, even love.
It is a good, but flawed package.

TerrorFirmer

CramCycle wrote: »

Good review, the only thing I would disagree on is the MP, if it handles like Reach and not Halo CE, then is it not akin to just buying two different games? One thing I know a few people use SP for is to get used to the mechanics before going onto MP but in this case it would seem akin to playing MW3 SP to upskill yourself for BF3. A drastic example but I hope you see where i am coming from. I think it would be worth mentioning the differences in handling if noticeable ie they are different (but similar games). Or am I wrong here, haven't played Reach in awhile.

I didn't mention it because actually, the Halo games all generally handle similarly, though they've naturally been refined, but remain similar enough to be familiar regardless of the game and indeed, differences within the MP sections of each game. Recently enough, we went back to Halo 2 to play a bit of LAN, and despite it's age and fundamentally simple design compared to say, Reach, it's still very much Halo in terms of playability and feel - partly the reason why I'm hesitant to see 343 develop Halo on an all new engine that's not of Bungie origin, for fear of loosing that very refined familiarity that's been present since day one.

Ostrom

Loving it so far - both for nostalgia, and gameplay. Traded CODMW 3 (cant understand why I pick it up every year - exactly the same game each time, and equally as bland). As playable as it was back when.