Give the magic: HP dv5tWill Halo 3: Recon turn the Halo series around?
Microsoft made a splash recently by announcing (among other things), Halo 3: Recon, which is slated for release next Fall. According to the company, the title will feature a new protagonist and be a prelude to the events we played through in the original Halo games.
At first glance, the game sounds like a smart idea: Halo is one of the most celebrated titles in the history of gaming and is one of the main reasons the Xbox and Xbox 360 are relevant today. But the question of whether or not we should have another Halo hit store shelves is not an easy one to answer.
The original Halo title for the Xbox was undoubtedly one of the best games of that generation. It featured outstanding gameplay, a pretty good story, and a multiplayer experience that was unrivaled at the time. Since then, though, the Halo franchise has become a shadow of its former self.
Sure, Halo 2 and Halo 3 may have been embraced by gamers and the latter made $170 million in its first day of availability, but anyone who played through the last two games knows all too well that the experience couldn't match the first game, the stories weren't nearly as appealing as the first, and the gameplay couldn't quite compete with the first title.
And now, Microsoft wants to go back to the well to see if it can squeeze every last ounce of cash out of the Halo franchise before it enters gaming's retirement home. Financially, it will probably behoove Microsoft to do so. But from a long-term perspective, will it do more damage than good?
I think so.
How many times have we seen games stretched out for too long, only to see a once-beloved franchise turn into a bundle of crap? It has happened with the Madden franchise for one, but it's endemic in the video game business. Once a company thinks it can make a large sum of cash on a franchise that has been embraced by so many, it forgets about the gameplay and the story and forces developers to rush a game out the door to turn a quick profit.
And although Microsoft is trying to play it off like Halo 3: Recon will be different and the next logical follow-up to Master Chief's exploits, it's not pulling one over on those of us who want to see proud franchises stay that way.
Halo 3: Recon will sell out on too many levels. It'll be the same basic game with a barely-updated design that features a new storyline and a new protagonist that we probably won't even like. The purists among us will desire the old days of Master Chief and those new to the franchise will wonder what all the fuss is about.
Of course, I could be wrong and Halo 3: Recon could be the greatest Halo ever released. But let's be honest with ourselves: does this game really sound like one that has "great game" written all over it? If you ask me, this has "let's make lots and lots of money off Halo" written all over it. And that's not good for anyone.
Why can't Microsoft let Halo retire at the top of its game? Yes, I know that the company's executives have to make money for the company and the best way to do that is to exploit its most popular franchise, but can't it see that if it goes to the well one too many times, it'll dry up eventually?
Microsoft should let Halo go away and watch as a grassroots campaign starts by those asking for a new game to be released. Then, in tandem with the release of the Xbox 360's follow-up, Microsoft should release a Halo title.
By doing so, it'll sell like gangbusters and the console will take an early lead thanks to rabid fans who have been drooling over the possibility of another Halo game for years.
See, it's not that I have a problem with Microsoft releasing another Halo game. Instead, I have a problem with Microsoft releasing it too early in a thinly-veiled attempt to make some quick cash.
The golden rule of gaming is to create a wildly popular franchise and let that franchise become more popular while it's absent from store shelves. Then, when the time is right and there is much more to gain than a few extra bucks, developers should release the next iteration, rinse, and repeat.
I think Microsoft has made a mistake. It should have waited until the time was right to offer another Halo title. And in its haste, it may ruin the franchise for good.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
- Topics:
-
HDTV,
-
Digital Home,
-
Microsoft
- Tags:
-
Video games,
-
Microsoft,
-
Xbox 360,
-
Halo
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
1) Whether the last two Halo games are as good as the first is a matter of opinion. For instance, I think the Halo series has only improved since the first. While the story may not have improved over time, it has not deteriorated in any way. The graphics have only gotten better. Halo 1 only had multiplayer you had to invite people over for, Halo 2 improved on that with the Live component. Halo 3 improved upon that with better balance between weapons to keep the variation alive. None of these are perfect, but neither do they lessen the series.
2) H3R is not a new game, persay, but a standalone expansion. From the information Microsoft has given out, it seems that it will include a new campaign story but all the multiplayer functionality will be add ons (maps and such forth) for the current system. Many PC games do the same thing. (Tiberium Wars, for one)
3) "It'll be the same basic game with a barely-updated design that features a new storyline and a new protagonist that we probably won't even like." Actually the design change from a "super soldier" that is basically a small tank to a normal soldier in a war is quite a big one. It goes from just run and gun with short periods of hiding to "recharge shields", to an actual health system and a greater requirement for stealth and secrecy. And the change in protagonist will most likely not change people's opinion. Ask almost anyone that plays Halo, and the change was both expected and welcome, although some would have liked to see it deviate even further into a squad-based shooter.
The only disappointment I found in Halo 3 was missing the ability to play as The Arbiter as well as MC (I was one of the few who liked that aspect of H2 I know I know).
On all other notes, Halo 3 was superb and the best of the bunch with a fittingly epic conclusion to the best epic SF shooter experiences ever on a console, and EVERY iteration of the game has better multiplayer than the version before it. There's a reason why Halo 3 still battles for the top spot in online play over a year after its release.
DR: "Why can't Microsoft let Halo retire at the top of its game? Yes, I know that the company's executives have to make money for the company and the best way to do that is to exploit its most popular franchise, but can't it see that if it goes to the well one too many times, it'll dry up eventually?"
This is the most asinine thing I've read from Mr. Reisinger, on a number of levels. It sounds like he's using 'exploit' in the pejorative sense, but since the title in question isn't even due out for another year, how does this statement hold any water? Only time will tell whether the franchise is being 'exploited' or 'expanded'. I always thought that one should hope for the best, but expect the worst. Clearly Mr. Reisinger is hoping for the worst and expecting bad, even though Bungie's got a good track record going for itself.
I for one trust what playing a human character in the Haloverse will bring to the table. The scant indicators about this expansion is epic Halo sci-fi action with a COD4/Brothers In Arms level of gritty 'a single shot will kill you' tension (not that I'm a fanboy EXPECTING it to be the best, but Bungie's got a stellar track record when it comes to the franchise and deserves the benefit of the doubt).
I knew there was a reason I only manage to get through about 5 minutes of episodes of BOL that Don is on. This article is a shining example of that.
Most of your points are pretty boring and over used. You can't tell anyone Bungie are rushing: this "game"(if you can even call it that), is not coming out while fall 09 - so it seems like they are taking too long to me.
Every game console needs its first party mascot that is the face of the console. Sony already has a problem with that. Microsoft has Halo and Master Chief.
If you know the Halo story you will see that Halo 3:Recon cannot be the same as the others. An ODST is not the Master Chief. They don't have recharging energy shields, they aren't altered with super abilities, they are normal people. This game will not be the same Halo you have played 3 times already.
I also disagree on Halo 2 and 3 not being as good as the first. Halo 3 is probably the best of them all, at least my favorite. Halo 1 (CE) was amazing for its time. Halo 2 was a pretty big let down in the campaign but at least Bungie was able to save the multiplayer with a series of updates. Halo 3 though is different. It blends the best of both games into a complete package. Fun campaign missions and a multiplayer experience that I do not think can be matched by anyone but Bungie themselves. Bungie.net is like the rabid fan's paradise, more stat tracking and community interaction than one can handle.
Halo as a franchise will live on forever. Halo 3:Recon isn't some half assed thrown together game. Bungie is making this, they will not let their creation go quietly into the night. And lets not forget, that in the future the next Xbox will need a kill launch title, and Master Chief is still floating around in space just waiting. He will be back in a new adventure, Halo isn't going anywhere.
Now if you want to bash Halo Wars, I will probably agree that is overkill.
They will have completely sold out when the announce a Halo movie. You know it's going to happen.
They only people who think the weapon balance in the first Halo was better have to be pistol ******. That weapon, while being fun, was way too over powered. The subsequent Halos weapon balance were much better with the introduction of duel wielding. I agree with many of the comments here, that Halo2 and 3 well all around better games. It seems they mostly suffered more from unrealisticly high expectations than any major flaw.
It's only a prequel to halo 3, you think if you want to write a article about something, you would read over the topic material, but what do you expect from the company who owns Gamespot HA
Bungie is using the story that we love so much in a universe we've come to adore and telling us every aspect of the story
Halo is a wonderful product and Bungie knows it
Also, Bungie made the call on this, NOT M$, so quit acting like Bill gates is trying to rape every halo lover out there
M$ owns the Halo name but Bungie respects its story and its fans enough to let us get another slice of their well thought out universe
This game will be set up differently
no Master Chief means no super jumps or turrets off but the more tactical "RECON" style
So stop whining about "its ruining Halo!!!" and remember that theyre taking a risk that will change a lot of halo haters minds
Halo: Combat evolved almost rewrote a genre and was probably one of the most complete games ever made. To follow a game like that and innovate on every level, and keep everyone happy, was impossible. Halo 2 was massively disappointing for everyone, it felt unforgiving, incomplete and yet it was vastly superior to most game experiences i have had, simply because it followed Combat Evolved it was like holding up an ODST against a Spartan. It was no slouch, but next to Michael Johnson...
Then, Halo 3 came through and for most 'purists', it was a breath of fresh air. It felt complete. Plain and simple. If you love the first halo is was because it felt so complete, so fluid, intuitive in fact. Halo 3 felt like this when i picked it up, it felt like Halo again, no clipping, no missed textures, you were Master Chief in the 26th Century. I think it brought the series back to a peak. The only qualms i have are insignificant, too short, didn't feel like a complete end to the story. It was better when you though MC had died almost.
But out of the subjectivity that is my 'purist's' view of the Halo series, you say that the series has gone downhill since the first one and then you later say that they should stop now so Halo can retire at the top of it's game!?!? Haven't you already said it has gone downhill, shouldn't we reason that perhaps they should try to improve the already sullen name of Halo, according to you?
You also say it will be the same basic game design. What information is this based on? The fact that it is a Halo game? That was a given. They have changed the main character, obviously for reasons that involve the next Master Chief game being on the next Xbox platform, the game you so seem to long for (despite the fact that you say they should leave the series alone????). Which will, i imagine, make the game a more stealthy, maybe even team based shooter. That's pretty big for a series change. Heresay shouldn't be the basis of journalism, i thought it was based on facts and research, a 2 minute trailer released by Bungie does not a judgement qualify.
And, finally, too early? Really. Bungie stopped making Halo 3 1 year ago, and there is still one year until the release of this game. Maybe for Bungie that isn't a long development time but they were making Halo 3 for a long time and being an expansion, i imagine that alot of Halo 3's research can be used for this game. 2 years for a game is plenty, with Bungie's level of perfectionism maybe it might seem short, but from the trailer, and i am sure they're loathe to use much CG, it all looks pretty on track to look stunning.
As you might imagine i will wet myself when this game gets on the shelves, and i will doubtlessly take a day off work so i can sit in front of my TV and complete this before anyone can tell me what happens in it. And, deep down in me ,and probably even in you in you, i'm sure we both know, you will probably want to do exactly the same.
(they already announced and shelved an idea for a halo film, that's old news).
Anyway, I just want to say I'm glad they are making another Halo game. I wish it would be Master Chief or another Spartan, but it will still be good.
It could be that I'm growing up and finding video games not as fun as they used to be though.
By the way, paintball is way more fun than Halo.
If you're a hardcore Halo fan such as myself, you've read the books and know that the Halo universe has been expanded pretty successfully beyond the exploits of Master Chief. I'd like to see some new character introductions and stories in the Halo Universe. If I'm blasting Covenant and saving the planet, I'll have fun as long as the story is good. Master Chief doesn't have to be in it.
Oh...and I liked the story. I thought overall it was very well written and had a fitting end.
As long as the story in the new game is good, I'll be happy. I liked Halo 3, I just hope they make it better.
1. If you really want to get right back to it; Bungie sold out when the started PC and PS2 games. What was up with that? They were a Mac developer, and they just jumped ship just because of money. Its clear they didn't even like the games they produced; they let the ONI property out of their hands before they'd even finished it.
2.Bungie sold out to MS in 2001. A small, indie developer, selling out to a mega-corporation just to churn out games for their proprietry system called the Xbox. They're already gone man; they became one with MS; thats all about the money, all about creating cash cows and milking them.
3. Bungie sold out with Halo 2; making us play as Elites? What a load of *ahem* rubbish. Halo is all about the Master Chief dude! No wonder they make an entire GAME about some other character.
And now the flip-side:
1. 2 years is more than enough time to create a fantastic game. Case in point: Call of Duty 4. That series, I might add, has had more than twice as many RELEASED games as Halo has had even mentioned. Across a multitude of platforms and by an array of developers. One developer; one game; one system. Thats not as hard.
2. There already has been a grassroots campaign for an ODST focused game: Nearly as soon as the ODST were even mentioned, Halo fans across the world wondered what a game, in the universe, focused just on an ODST character would be like. People have been wondering about this for 5 years or more.
3. We basically no nothing about the game. There will be a campaign mode, some multiplayer, some fighting, some covenant, a few odsts... and thats it. We haven't seen a single image or video that is actually of the game iself yet. Not even concepts, just a CGI trailer. Anyone who knows even the barest amount about games will tell you not to judge it before you've seen some screens. Smarter among them would tell you to wait until you've seen some gameplay videos. And yet still, at the top of the pile, the smartest thing to do before judging a game is to actually PLAY it. No-one outside of Bungie/MS, certainly not you or I, have had the opportunity, let alone actually done any playing of this game.
4. Why the *ahem* are bashing the main character already? We've seen a shot of them in their armour, and walking around. Anyone who has played the last two Halo games will have seen hundreds of ODSTs do exactly the same thing; yeah, I hate them all.
Whats more, the chief didn't have a character; he was a hollow shell that you could imbue your own personality with. Bungie said so themselves! His personality (as presented in the games) never went beyond: "I'm uber cool and impossible to kill: I'm gonna save the galaxy!"
5. Prior to this, there were already 2 other announced spin-offs from the Halo franchise; THAT WEREN'T EVEN DEVELOPED BY BUNGIE! Those are more cash-cows than this; this is at least by the same developer, in the same genre. One of those other two was apparently an RTS? yeah, I know right? Whats up with that? Why don't you even mention that?
6. "It'll be the same basic game with a barely-updated design that features a new storyline and a new protagonist that we probably won't even like."
HUH? WHA? You could have said the exact same thing about Halo 2 to 1, or Halo 3 to 2. those didn't even have a new character. Jees.
In short; its clear that you haven't even thought about this and just want to jump on the "lets bash the latest Halo game!" bandwagon. You're late. People have already done that before you. and with far more reason to do so.
And who is to say that after a relatively small gaming company like Bungie spends lots of time creating a new game engine they shouldn't be allowed to use it for a second game? Often times it is best to simply improve on something that already works and was well received rather than making a new engine every time you make a new game.
When it all comes down to it, all anyone really wants is a fun game, and if its fun, we'll play it.
If that were truly how you felt, then why would you then suggest that Halo 3: Recon will ruin everything?
I think there's a basic fundamental element to this release that you're over looking. This is the Halo 3 storyline, told from another perspective. It's not quite a sequel, but may actually go a little further along the "halo timeline" than Halo 3 did.
THe basis of your remarks seemed to be the blanket statement that "no sequel is better than an original". I think you'll be forced to agree that there ARE sequels that have been better than originals. An Original idea, coming out of nowhere, holds the same, if not worse, failure rate as a sequel would.
You are making predictions based on thin air.
You need (and it's not just you, it's the entire breed of writers that follow this path in a self-important manner) to quit making the blanket statements, especially blind ones.. Sequels are not automatically bad things. Sort of like the "rumored-to-be-successful" Call of Duty 4, and every game that's ever emerged with a number attached to it. There's no guarantee you'll like a new one more than a sequel, there's no guarantee of the opposite either, but considering how Halo 2 sold better than Halo 1, the impression is that it was well received.
Think Star Wars (ignoring the newer prequel stuff)... Part 1 is considered by some to be the best, and other's prefer Part 2. All of those folks enjoyed the Star Wars trilogy though.. Ignore the trees and discover the forest. The halo storyline is larger than part one.
For me.. my concern is the same as it is for Halo Wars... My love for Halo is based on the gameplay first, storyline second. Halo 3 recon, doesn't seem like it'll have things like the Spartan leaps into the air, and duel wielding and stuff like that. If the player is a standard human, with standard human movement.. I don't know if it'll appeal to me NEARLY as much as the Halo Series itself.
Halo Wars isn't an FPS.. it's an RTS, and although it uses the Halo storylines.. it's also changing it. Halo's first encounters with the Flood are going to be the SECOND, third, or perhaps 20th encounter, because they'll be in Halo Wars, which is a sequel..
Now THAT feels like a sellout.. it's not even coming from Bungie.
Halo 3 Recon is at least coming to life in Bungie's hands. There's been rumors that perhaps this game will link directly into Bungie's new IP. A sort of "changing of the guard" thing that branches off of the well loved Halo storyline and becomes something new under it's own right.
If that's true, then all of your rambling and fingerpointing was WAY off base..
-
by amadan21
October 9, 2008 12:22 PM PDT
- I believe that your judgement is wrong and completely not founded in the gaming tradition Microsoft and Bungie has followed over the years. If you look at their records, especially Bungie's, it shows that each game, even if it was an expansion like H3R, has been an outstanding achievement and has improved on many of the aspects the old game left off.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 72 Comments >>H3R will be just as good. There are many things that H3R could improve on and I hope that H3R will change that. And, the series will not shift its focus on a regular soldier like Call of Duty or something like that, it will focus on the Spartan Army and how it was before the Covenent War started. You should go to the Bungie website and actually read some of the information on the game and you should look into the sources you get your information from as well.
I would have expected a greater degree of accuracy from an article that had CNET's backing. This is a very poor demonstration of judgement and feels more like a piece written by a 9 year old ranting about how he doesn't want another game to come out. You have no right to say that H3R will be a disappointment and boast yourself as some tech and gaming expert. Only time will tell but based off of previous games and EXPANSIONS released by Bungie and Microsoft, I feel that it will be a major improvement.
Plus, you also should have mentioned how Halo Wars will also be coming out at the same time. Halo Wars is a strategy game that focus on the supersoldier Spartan army from the omnicient perspective. Halo 3 R will be one that focus on the army itself and introduce manybe a regular spartan solider during the intital wars.
Please write better articles in the future and use better judgement, thanks.