After Bungie announced the ending of the Halo franchise, I like many others rejoiced that a game so close to my heart as the first Xbox title I not only played, but enjoyed countless hours at, was finally to rest in peace. This previous E3 in June, Microsoft announced, not only another Halo title, but also a remake of the original from the Xbox. Halo Anniversary is an HD "remake" of the original Halo: Combat Evolved that not only was a hit but garnered a cult-like following among some. I have not weighed in my opinion on Halo on this site, but just from my first sentence it should have been clear, that the series has had a decent sequel but after 2 it went downhill and fast. Repetition in every aspect, enemies, levels, story, nothing new was introduced that could be described as a game changer. From continuous clones that seems to go unnoticed to the public to a RTS (Real-time strategy), the franchise has not been known for innovation or change. Is this a bad thing? One can describe it as a bad thing, but like Half Life 2 and all of its episodes, why change what worked. But yet nothing seems to have changed, I played Halo 1-3 and noticed almost identical levels and story, no new enemies besides some annoying bugs, even The Flood looks to be HD copies from H:CE. The aforementioned Half Life example, each episode had slightly improved graphics, changes in the story and locations. They each felt like new games, not expansions. I'm not retracting what I said before but look at it this way, it had the same mechanics and characters, enemies, weapons; not much changed but yet each version from Half Life 2 to each of the two episodes felt like new games, keeping it fresh and enjoyable. Halo on the other hand, acts like each subsequent sequel just walks in the pond the first one dug, that pond is stagnant.
Am I looking forward to these new Halos? Yes and no, yes to Anniversary (but won't pay $60 for it) but not to the Halo 4, because I know it is going to be another germ to throw into the now stagnant pond of Halo that was once full of life and a decent fishing spot to relax at if you follow my analogy. Halo Anniversary looks like a whole new take on the original, not just better clarity like with American McGee's Alice, HD version that came free with new copies of Alice: Madness Returns; or for another example like Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D I reviewed not long ago, not enough newness to keep me coming back for more, I got stuck at the Forest Temple and there Link remains for the past month. Halo Anniversary looks to have been nearly rebuilt from the ground up with so much new detail and design that it looks like the classic Halo we all know and love, but the true sequel we've wanted for years. I really want it, but will wait until it comes down if its released at the usual $60 of a new game.
So, to reiterate my point, Halo:Combat Evolved was great, Halo 2 felt like milking a franchise, and Halo 3 was an HD attempt at seeing how much could be copied and pasted from 1 and 2 combined to make a "new" entry in the series. With all the talk of Sony's PS3 and Vita, Nintendo's Wii U and 3DS, two more Halo titles to me sounds like an attempt at Xbox saying they don't need a new console to keep appealing, true, there is no need for another Xbox, but a new game would have been great instead of digging up Halo, not just for Anniversary, but also for another sequel. It may say 4 on the cover, but given, H:CE, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo Wars, Halo 3:ODST, and the newest Halo Reach; this is actually Halo 7, I know that may be nitpicking, but given that gaming is a multi-million dollar a year industry, you'd think the people in charge could count.
No comments:
Post a Comment