My Superfriend told me that he was very, very disappointed with the game's inability to follow the source material in any coherent fashion.  I told him to trade it into Gamestop and he was like "No!  The Survival mode's fun."

I think the problem is you were expecting characters and a plot. I realize that's a really crass thing to say, but the plot in Halo games have never been a strong point, just a framework to hang setpieces off of. When I talk to others about Halo, they never mention the characters either (except as enemies); just the weapons, vehicles and setups. Thus I didn't care about the characters, and as such, Reach is the best console fps yet. 'Luckily' all the other contenders like Crysis or Call of Duty 4 or Gears are just as bad in the plotlines for the emotionally stunted department.

... Hooray for low standards?

I do agree with everything you said about Reach - I didn't care about the characters either, and frequently lost track of who was who. Thank goodness for the ethnic stereotyping reducing some of the confusion! But this just seems endemic. Did you find yourself invested in Master Chief? He seems like the only character I can imagine identifying with, mostly because he never says anything and you're in his armor for three games. But after that, the parade of nobodies for ODST and Reach certainly would be doubly alienating.

I realize this all reads as dismissive, and it's not my intention to berate you for /hoping/ the game might be as epic as what you expected from one of your favorite books, but the Halo games have always been about the technical, not the emotional (even when they try). A mass market video game just can't manage the characterization and story of a good book. Only some RPGs even seriously try. I think you were doomed to dissappointment here.

Well, The Fall of Reach has actually been a pretty high point for an otherwise dull and eventless universe, and fans and non-fans alike enjoyed the story it wove.  I've heard from about 90 people that I need to read this book.  I was waiting for referral #93.  When you base a game off something as respected as this story, you sorta have a responsibility to deliver some sort of coherent somewhat faithful translation at the very least.  

 

From what I've heard, they did not do that.  I can understand the disappointment.  Sure, the multiplayer fans are all happy, but what about the people who actually CARED how the story turned out?  Sort of a slap in the face.

I'm not saying the story is what kept me playing the other games -- that Reach's story stinks is a contributing factor to my dislike of a dull campaign.

I have kept Halo confined to the games alone. I have been tempted to read the books. But I've been told by several people that they are horrible, including Fall of Reach. Maybe that's why I loved all the games so much. I loved Reach's story. I knew as I got closer to the end I knew that I was going to start losing team mates. But it was still heart wrenching when Kat was shot out of the blue by a sniper. I'm not saying you're wrong Mitch, but to flat out say it's horrible is like saying The Godfather was horribly over rated. I've hreard that said over and over again. I can understand why people say that, but it doesn't make their opinion affect my own.

I haven't read your whole article yet because I'm on only the sixth mission. But from reading your first few paragraphs, I'm in the same boat as you: the story pretty much sucks. I've never expected video game stories -- especially Halo's -- to move me, but Reach's narrative is just plain boring. I don't know who any of the characters are, or why I should care about them. I find myself hopping online during the cut-scenes.

 

I was actually going to write a similar article after I had finished the game. But damnit, you beat me to it. :) Eh, maybe I'll write it anyway.

 

Edit: I want to clarify that I still think the gameplay rocks, and that the multiplayer is ace.

I think the gameplay's fine, but that the mission encounters aren't interesting to me. I remember so many great moments from every other Halo game, but where are the "Oh, man, remember that crazy thing?" events to reminisce about? I strongly disliked how thorughly dull the design was, especially compared to all the exciting moments in earlier games.

@Nick: Write away! The more voices to argue alternate sides, the better!

You thought that Halo 3 was exciting? Really? I thought the Halo 3 story and campaign were just as bad as Reach's, only more offensively so because the ad campaign hyped it so much more heavily. I was expecting some badass Battle of New Mobassa where Master Chief saves the day and keeps hope alive for all the battered human soldiers...but there wasn't a single large-scale battle in the entire game. *sigh*

 

And Mitch, I think you're being extremely generous in saying that the characters in Reach have personalities. They're caricatures, not characters...which means they have all the personality of a piece of cardboard. They're all pretty much the same person: badass super-soldier. 'Nuff said.

The original Halo easily had the best campaign. It had a bunch of epic firefights, and an interesting story arc (not to mention a twist that actually worked). I do think, however, that the multiplayer has gotten progressively better. Judging by the little I've played of Reach's multiplayer, it looks to be the best yet.

Having read the books as well, I was pleased with the story in Halo: Reach.  I'm not quite sure what your expectations were going in, but I suspect they may have been inflated enough to set you up for disappointment.

 

I came across plenty of "Oh, s#?t!" moments like the destruction of the UNSC ship in Tip of the Spear after Noble 6 et al took out that Covenant tower.  I found it a great piece of foreshadowing that punctuated the contrast between effort and overall outcome.  Or in Long Night of Solace, the epitome of a special op, where a desperate situation spawned a crazy idea that again, foreshadowed the endgame.

 

If you're looking for Shakespeare, a video game isn't the place to look.  If you're looking for strict adherence to canon set by a book, I thought we'd all learned years ago not to expect it.

 

The story provided just enough context to frame the action, just as it was with all the other Halo games, or most games for that matter.  That's all I expected, and with that in mind, I was pleased to find a story that gave me a little bit more.

 

I suppose I can see your point.  I just have to disagree.

Halo Reach campaign was total garbage in almost every way. "Awful" is the perfect word.

Halo 1 was Christ-centered. All other Halos were politically correct with Halo Reach keeping Berkeley graduates really happy.

I've read all the books a couple times and I didn't have any problem with the story. The only thing I could think of is why the PoA is on the planet as I recall it being in orbit for the duration of the battle (not sure about that). I think the style of story they chose kind of ham-stringed them into having pretty shallow characters. After all it wouldn't really make sense for this "best of the best" strike team to talk about their feelings in the middle of a desperate attempt to defend the human race's stronghold. I think that would have broken cannon more than anything they did with weapons or whatever problems you had with it. You'd have to do some non-wartime gameplay in order to develop the type of characters you're talking about. I think the story was engaging and fun and getting to see Halsey and other old friends was a treat. I thought Jorge's final act was really cool as well as Carter's. I think there are a lot of memorable moments in the campaign, and I wouldn't change a thing about it.

Hey Mitch, great write-up as always. However, I couldn't disagree with you more. For me Reach is Bungie's finest outing. I think this has to do with the fact that I had no expectations going in and I have a strict policy of never reading video game novelizations. 5-6 missions in I was having a good time (not great but still fun). The final few missions had mega oh snap moments and the tone of the last mission still haunts me.

Reach is very depression cookie cutter mess thats completely off track to what was earlier projected from the book . What was the reason for making a game that is so far off than what we was all lead to believe was comming ?.   

  Reach is not the best FPS to date  on console . Maybe in a childs eye it is , But for me a beta tester for 22 years and mod team devloper for many things pc for 20 years plus . the console games are getting worse and worse as if the console gaming public  enjoys the same bland tastless plate of crap being served to them time and time again, blindly not having any idea they are eating the same plain saltless crap .

This is really sad for the industry to be honest . We need QUALITY not QUANTITY .

i couldnt put my finger on what bothered me about this game, but you nailed it. not that many oh shit moments, totally forgettable, and honestly the characters in the game were throwaway no emotional connection at all.

i think the biggest problem with halo is that its multiplayer component is so good that the campaign's problems get overlooked each game, with no negative feedback coming there way they were never gonna change their approach.

its sad that this game is about the destruction of a world and making a last stand and i was more emotional during gears of wars maria death scene lol

@john doe Sorry but everything in your comment just makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about. I don't mean to be rude; but firstly, Bungie never promised The Fall of Reach in video game form. If you really wanted them to do that then we wouldn't have gotten a multiplayer/ forge world or firefight component at all. Second of all there is a reason this is Bungie's last Halo game. They don't want to make the same game again that's why they're with Activision now. I'm happy to eat the same thing over and over when it's as delicious as Bungie's epic multiplayer suite and engaging malevolent AI-fueled encounters. Especially since there is literally nothing better on the market. Reach takes the series to new heights, and manages to mix things up a little bit (armor abilities, space combat) while still paying homage to the games that have defined console shooters for the last ten years. That's why I love it and it's why I have no need to buy another game at least until next year. 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I think the game's biggest downfall was the soundtrack. I think ODST's campaign was twice as good as Reach's but mostly because specific jazz-inspired songs went so well with the game's mood. 

I think every Halo game had 1 or 2 specific missions with incredibly memorable moments, but those moments were defined by a specific track, Reach doesn't have those moments because it doesn't have those tracks. At least I'd say that's at least 50% of the problem.

The general impression I'm getting from other comments is that it's all coming down to preference.  That's something I can't disagree with.  As I mentioned in my last comment, I really lilked the story for reasons that I wouldn't be able to fit in a simple comment to the article.

 

I have to admit though, I'm more than a little baffled by the notion that you didn't know what was going on in the story, let alone the names of Noble Team.  Half paying attention on my first playthrough, I had a great sense of context with the Reach plot.  Was there something else going on that was distracting you?

 

It's not like the narrative was as convoluted as Metal Gear.  It didn't have the headscratching scene progressoin of Gears of War.

 

So I don't understand. I get the feeling we're not getting the whole picture about your experience with Reach.

@John C

I didn't know what was going on because the story was bad and I didn't care.

It was trying to be like Halo 1, but we are already familiar with all of the shamelessly reused enemies. Also, I don't believe that suicide is ever an option. Ever heard of the Japanese Kamakaze? That is wrong and there were too many of those in the plot, including yourself in the end.

Captain Keyes in Halo 1 would not send someone on an impossible mission. Not even for the world. Captian Keyes in Halo Reach dances to arabic music and sends his troops with bombs strapped to their chests. The ending was pathetic.

@Tim

So for you, it's just your moral misgivings that prevent you from liking the plot.  You must not like many movies, television shows or books since many are filled with characters willing to give of themselves for something bigger than their own well being.  Well, that's fine.  We'll just have to chalk this up to personal taste.

 

When options are few and stakes high, their decisions are their decisions.  For me, I found the acts of selflessness in the face of overwhelming odds for the sake of others to be appropriate to the plot regardless of whether I agreed with the decision or not.

 

I'm not going to dignify the inference in your last couple sentences with further reply because I find it insulting and offensive.

@Mitch, i finally beat the game Monday evening, and i have read your post twice now.  Generally speaking, I really like your writing and what you have to say.  So that's why I'm having such a hard time wrapping my brain around this post of yours.

Let me take a step back.  I think it's dangerous to make a game or movie based on a novel with an already established fan base of highly passionate individuals.  At the best of times, we ALL approach a movie, book, or videogame with a set of preconceived expectations.  We say we don't, but we do.  How can we not?  We have brains and we use them.  Mitch, you clearly had the story direction in your mind and had how the game should play before ever saddling up to the TV.  And i don't know that such a thing is Bungie's fault.

I didn't read the book, so I can't speak its differences and similarities when compared with the game.  In fact, I'd rather NOT read the book.  I am only a little sad to admit I am sort of a book snob but in an odd way.  I won't slum it into the books-about-videogames category, and I'm not sure why.  Years ago, I read a few Robotech novels, and I suppose they were just "so-so".  They were not of the caliber of a Neil Gaiman, Chuck Palahniuk, nor did they have the hauntingly spooky gotchas of Steve King and Clive Barker.  I don't read "classics", and I don't read books based on games.

That said, I have been meaning to read The Fall of Reach, but I just haven't gotten around to it.  And because of this post, now I won't.

I look at Bungie as being the Steven Spielberg in this situation.  They have to look at the source material and distill a 50-hour story into 10.  And make it visual.  And simplify it.  And make it more engaging than a novel could possibly be by way of direct control of certain points of the story (what with all the shooting and stabbing and running and flying).  They had to apply the story to a person or small group of persons in order to give the player something to feel attached to as the story progressed.  And these characters could NOT be complex, because the death of a planet is the main character of this little ditty.

To expand upon my Spielberg analogy, I offer exhibit A: Jurassic Park.  I came into that movie having read the Michael Crichton novel of the same name.  The book was fantastic.  The movie was different, but I was willing to slide my expectations to the side because I was willing to take a walk with Spielberg and hear and see his story play out in all its visual splendor.  The Lost World was a decent follow-up novel, but the movie was terrible.  I took personal offense to the thorough dropping of the ball.  So in that way I can appreciate your perspective... I don't want the book to negatively affect my feelings towards the game.  Similar to how I choose not to read source material for movies I really enjoy -- I know all things being equal, the books are generally much better (Exhibit B: The Descent by Jeff Long.  INCREDIBLE District-9-meets-Fallout-3's-ghouls book... terrible, horrible crap-meets-screen movie).  

But while most everyone hated the movie Jurassic Park II: The Lost World, this situation is different.  Nearly every critical voice has chimed in with pure accolades for Halo: Reach.  More importantly, I personally thoroughly enjoyed the game.  I think it is special in many ways, and I keep finding new things to enjoy.  I have a feeling I will be playing this game quite often for the next few months, maybe longer.  To me, the story is haunting, and the gameplay is precise, unforgiving and gratifying.  Especially when played at stoopid difficulty.

I dunno.  It seems to me that Halo: Reach is not to blame for your irritability or personal attachment to the source material.  Because of this, the actual title of your post is wrong and should be changed.  Like I said, I generally enjoy your writing, but this time I have to agree to disagree.

Perhaps you can do the same with Halo: Reach?

Keith: At no point did I associate Halo, in game or novel form, on the same narrative or literary level as a Spielberg film or King novel. I had expectations going in, yes, but I didn't expect Reach to become my favorite story, comparable with Gaiman or Palahniuk. You're adding something to this equation that needn't be here.

Standing on its own merits, and as something existing in a universe I love, Reach disappointed separate from my expectations and associations. Relative to The Fall of Reach or not, the story didn't go anywhere and the characters were limp. That aside, the game itself irritated me -- you seem to think my only issue is in its story, when that's a secondary fault I had with it as a whole.

On one hand, I can understand your frustration. For me, the original Halo had the strongest single-player campaign of the series, not in terms of gameplay, but due to a strong sense of atmosphere, isolation, and a great sci-fi narrative to boot. It wasn't a sprawling, apocalyptic battle where Master Chief is always kept company by expendable grunts, where action and the fight infringe upon plot and the larger narrative surrounding Halo.

You are much more alone in Halo, traversing ruins, an alien history embedded in architecture, and trying to discover what Halo is. In Halo 2, 3, ODST, and now, Reach, it's much more about the fight, the battle spectacle than any sort of significant narrative development or interesting atmosphere. You are no longer alone in the wasteland, excavating clues and outnumbered by parasites and the Covenant.

The original Halo demonstrated to me that Bungie is capable of creating a rich, atmospheric, and grand single-player world in a more minimalistic way. That sense of mystery, discovery, and being a gnat on the ancient ring of Halo – not some lobotomized John Wayne warbeast leading the charge of meatheads into the next set piece of war pronography – was realized in the first game and abandoned in the subsequent releases. IMO of course.

On the other hand, as much as I wish Bungie would value narrative, exploration, and crafting a unique world again, they've proven to me in the past four Halo campaigns that they are not interested in doing so. They're not interested in less on-screen enemies, long stretches without squad AI, or less action set pieces (some qualities of Halo 1 that I prefer). The spectacle of the fight is what they are interested in, and this supersedes all else in the campaign, such as story, plot, a more varied pace not continually predicated on skirmishes, lonesome exploration of interesting environments, and a soundtrack that doesn't sound like it was performed by the drum sections of various multi-cultural battalions.

So, I've lost every last clinging hope or interest in future Halo campaigns, and don't mind that Reach is so blunt and doesn't integrate narrative into interactive in-game sequences. I'll just skip the cutscenes and play through a couple skirmishes before losing interest anyway, and then turn to multiplayer.

being that halo reach was the home planet to all of the spartans i think they should have gotten more into the fact that spartans were the saviors of human kind. I felt as if they were to focused on Noble team and should have been more focused on spartans all around. I have the same reaction as you did, by the end of the game i was just waiting for some awesome twist but there was nothing that i didn't see coming.