Halo: Reach Discussion

[Good_Apollo]

Of course the Reach assets have more detail, they couldn't do that back in Halo 1. If they could have they would have. The covenant and human technology definitely looks like it progresses chronologically even if there were different engine limitations.

Nah, it's mostly just excuses to make uneeded changes to good concepts (there's a difference between upgrading the Banshee graphically and changing it all together). I wouldn't be surprised if less than half the original team that created Halo 1 still works at Bungie. Probably just a bunch of fresh employees with big paychecks trying to figure out how to best appease 13 year old gamers with 'rad' new gear!

Then again, these arguments are just as fruitless as the ones between old Star Wars and new Star Wars, everyone just looks dumb in the end.

[Warsaw]

Actually, a lot of the original team did leave Bungie after Halo 1's release. But still. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to change how something looks. I think the new AR, even though it is still technically an MA5B (M37 is its Army name), looks better. Sometimes they do good on the revamp, sometimes not so good. It looks to me like they've really trimmed up the Mk. V armour since the VGA trailer, and it looks good.

Point being, retcon is not always bad.

[Kornman00]

Look at the Grizzled Ancients of the Meet the Team. At lot of them still work there. However, most are tending to the Next Project.

[Pooky]

Of course the Reach assets have more detail, they couldn't do that back in Halo 1. If they could have they would have. The covenant and human technology definitely looks like it progresses chronologically even if there were different engine limitations.

What I think is funny is how the weapons technology steadily moves backwards as the series progresses. On the human side for example, there's the shotgun. In Halo 1, it could 1 shot people at a considerable range. In Halo 2 the 1 shot kill range was toned down quite a bit, but you could still 2 shot people from a good distance. In Halo 3, the shotgun can 2 shot people from 3 inches away and 1 shot them if you're shoving it down their throat.

[p0lar_bear]

All in the name of game "balance" (meaning if it's not the all-purpose headshot machine, nerf the fuck out of it so the MLG kids won't cry about it).

[Inferno]

What I think is funny is how the weapons technology steadily moves backwards as the series progresses. On the human side for example, there's the shotgun. In Halo 1, it could 1 shot people at a considerable range. In Halo 2 the 1 shot kill range was toned down quite a bit, but you could still 2 shot people from a good distance. In Halo 3, the shotgun can 2 shot people from 3 inches away and 1 shot them if you're shoving it down their throat.

Actually the Halo 3 shotgun is way better than the Halo 2 shotgun.

I can out BR kids in halo 2 who are point blank with the shotgun. It's pretty bad.

[flibitijibibo]

Yeah, iIrc the Halo 3 shotgun was pretty good, even on a bad connection. The Halo 2 shotgun felt like you were firing blanks.

[Pooky]

Maybe to you kiddies, but I always felt like it was the other way around vOv

[Warsaw]

I raped with the Halo 2 shotgun. The Halo 3 one was damn near useless because you had to shove it in your opponent's eye socket for it to mean anything at all...and if he/she had a hammer, you were fucked anyways.

[sevlag]

I raped with the Halo 2 shotgun. The Halo 3 one was damn near useless because you had to shove it in your opponent's eye socket for it to mean anything at all...and if he/she had a hammer, you were fucked anyways.

yep