Halo Reach - Never played any of the series. Should I start with the 1st one?

hobbit stomper

Hi there,

I've never been a big fan of consoles, I'm more of a PC gamer, but since I have an XBox and people telling me that Halo Reach is one of the best games on it, I did get curious.

But should I play the other parts of the series first to enjoy or understand the whole story?

What's the correct order by the way? Is this right?

Halo: Combat Evolved
Halo 2
Halo 3
Halo Wars
Halo 3: ODST
Halo: Reach

Edit: since Halo 1 and 2 were only released for the 1st generation Xbox, are they compatible with the X360?

-=al=-

technicaly it is the first one!

but if you want the story and the just of it yeah play em in order its a bit of fun, ive been playing them since like 2002

you got the order right there, i never played halo wars much or odst, you coul easily just play halo, halo 3 then reach

and yes the 360 is backward compatable unlike some other devices

lologram

Not sure about the backward compatibility unfortunately, hopefully it's possible because the first and second halos are good games.

I've played all of the series, with the exception of Halo Wars, I just wasn't sold on it. Leaving that one out, the games happen this way, chronologically.

Halo Reach
Halo
Halo 2
Halo: ODST
Halo 3.

Since you're starting the series now, you could try playing them in that order and getting a sense of the story that way. Playing them in order of release would still probably be best though, since the various plot elements will be revealed to you in the way they were revealed to everyone else, so you won't be expected to have prior knowledge. Like wondering who or what some of the things you face in Reach are.

Wouldn't blame you for getting Reach now and starting with that though as it's definitely the best rounded game of the series.

-=al=-

3 was my fav over all after the original, it rocks

im half way through reach on legendary solo at the min, the plasma pistol is my new best friend

YouSavedMyLife

I played Halo 3 after getting a loan of it for a while and was very dissapointed considering this was ment to be one of the best if not the best FPS title the 360 has to offer. I honestly dont see what all the fuss is about.

Its coming up to the release of Halo Reach and the hype got to me. I picked it up on release day thinking they must have made some improvements over Halo 3. What an idiot i was. It plays exactly like Halo 3, the graphics are sub-par. The controls feel very archaic. It simply feels very dated at this stage. For the last say, 10 years? FPS games have been taking this and taking that from each other to improve there game, where Halo has been Imitating itself since the release of Halo, thus no evolution from title to title. Reach feels like a last Gen title. I end up giving the game to my nephew cause hes a huge Halo fan, why i dont know

Considering your a PC gamer, i would steer well clear of the Halo series. Its gonna feel like you have been transported back in time 10 years. Stick with Wolfenstein 3D in my humble opinion

DarkJager

YouSavedMyLife wrote: »

I played Halo 3 after getting a loan of it for a while and was very dissapointed considering this was ment to be one of the best if not the best FPS title the 360 has to offer. I honestly dont see what all the fuss is about.

Its coming up to the release of Halo Reach and the hype got to me. I picked it up on release day thinking they must have made some improvements over Halo 3. What an idiot i was. It plays exactly like Halo 3, the graphics are sub-par. The controls feel very archaic. It simply feels very dated at this stage. For the last say, 10 years? FPS games have been taking this and taking that from each other to improve there game, where Halo has been Imitating itself since the release of Halo, thus no evolution from title to title. Reach feels like a last Gen title. I end up giving the game to my nephew cause hes a huge Halo fan, why i dont know

Considering your a PC gamer, i would steer well clear of the Halo series. Its gonna feel like you have been transported back in time 10 years. Stick with Wolfenstein 3D in my humble opinion

Considering that the assault rifle in Reach is made of more polygons than a marine in Halo 3, your comment about the graphics being sub par is ridiculous. I was nothing but impressed with the graphics in Reach. Maybe its time to upgrade to a HDTV?

YouSavedMyLife

The problem is your comparing it to previous Halo games. Well yeah it does look better than Halo 3, by god it should be but compared to other games in the genre its just not good enough. But i guess its not bad for a sub-HD game...



http://www.examiner.com/video-game-in-national/halo-reach-has-better-resolution-than-halo-3-but-still-sub-hd

Twilightning

Who the hell cares about the graphics? The OP was wondering what order he should play the games in, in order to get a better understanding of the Halo universe and its story and instead it's just degenerated into a debate over its graphics. It runs at a constant 30FPS and it still looks amazing with the motion blur. A lot of games these days aren't rendered in full HD.

I remember playing Metal Gear Solid 4 on the PS3 and the game barely kept up at 30FPS and the game had relatively low quality textures but it still looked fairly good. Regardless, that's not the reason I play video games. I do it for the gameplay.

YouSavedMyLife is clearly trolling here but it seems to be the popular thing to do these days, troll popular games franchises because people are guaranteed to get a reaction from somewhere. The controls in the game, like someone else mentioned earlier, are just like any other standard console FPS out there today. There's only so much innovation as regards controls you can achieve with the amount of buttons you have on an Xbox 360 or PS3 controller.

Saying FPS games have been borrowing from eachother to improve their game is true, but saying Halo's just been imitating itself since it came out is a bit derp, because no other FPS does that either right? Take the Call of Duty franchise for example. It's pretty much the same formula used game-in, game-out. All each installment does is offer improvements in gameplay and general playability over the previous ones, the same way Halo does. I don't think anyone expects anything groundbreaking, especially in the FPS genre, but Bungie still did shell out a damn fine game. Who cares if it's slightly below true HD? True gamers generally don't.

bucks73

If the OP really wanted to play Halo CE he can download it from the Games Marketplace and if he was able to find a copy of Halo 2 anywhere he could play that on his 360 as its one of the backward compatible games.

Have played them all myself, apart from Halo Wars, and found them all very enjoyable.

chrislad

I'd suggest order of release. Start with Reach, and it's like starting the week with a prime steak for lunch and then having McDonalds for dinner! Halo has aged in comparison, so you might as well work up with the improvements rather than each game being worse than the first you played!

justsomebloke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(series)

hightower1

In fairness I have to agree with yousavedmylife on some points, Reaches graphics are sub par compared to a lot of other FPS games released within the last year, halo story lines are known for being as dry as an arabs sneaker and the entire theme / style of the game is about as generic as it comes.

Look at the design of the weapons, vehicals, enviroments, charecters... its all just very very very bland off the shelf space marine stuff.
Bungie just got shcoked at how well halo 1 did and were terrified to change that up over the years for fear of loosing a cash cow which at this stage is feeling very dated.

OP, I would steer clear of the entire serise if I were you, I rember bactracking in combat evolved simply because nearly all the corridors looked idential but start @ combat evolved, hopefully after that you will see the point and give up there.

Otacon

I'd play Reach first. It is a prequel so the story is not spoiled for you. All the Halo games are very similar and the story isn't fantastic. If you like Reach, then go back to CE and play on from there.

My €0.02

FutureGuy

Halo and it's subsequent sequel are some of the most popular games on XBOX, but it's only natural that some people will dislike the games for whatever reason.

YouSavedMyLife, you are welcome to your opinion, buy you are off topic when relating to the OPs post.

The OP wants to play Halo: Reach and is only asking whether or not playing the other games will affect the enjoyment of reach.

To everyone else, disliking a game is not trolling. Having said that, I will be keeping a very close eye on this thread.

Please read the OPs post before structuring your response.

Lukker-

Just buy Reach for the multiplayer.

Skip the rest as the stories are awfully boring and cliched.

Reach probably had the worst single player of the lot as it pretty much was just going from A to B and kill everything, rinse and repeat.

Multiplayer in Reach is very refined though.

Twilightning

hightower1 wrote: »

In fairness I have to agree with yousavedmylife on some points, Reaches graphics are sub par compared to a lot of other FPS games released within the last year, halo story lines are known for being as dry as an arabs sneaker and the entire theme / style of the game is about as generic as it comes.

Other FPS games released in the last year like what? I sincerely hope you don't mention the likes of Battlefield or Modern Warfare 2, because the graphics within those games aren't anything amazing either. I've played both of them on my 1080p HDTV and I'll always prefer Halo for its colourful light effects and explosions over grubby brown and gun metal grey.

I don't really believe Halo's storyline is highly intricate or original but it still has its moments, plot twists, turns and developments and does a lot more to involve the player and put them in the shoes of the character they're playing as rather than just some faceless mute you play protagonist as in a lot of other games. Reach really went to exemplify this point as whatever Spartan you created when you started up the game was your very own Noble Six for the duration of the campaign and Bungie received praise for this, and rightly so.

hightower1 wrote: »

Look at the design of the weapons, vehicals, enviroments, charecters... its all just very very very bland off the shelf space marine stuff.

What's wrong with the design of the weapons exactly? Most of the weapons in the game range from the subtle to the extreme. Weapons like the Needler or the Gravity Hammer are fairly imaginative and they're a lot more fun to play around with than realistic weapons of other FPS franchises. I'd rather see hordes of galactic aliens detonate in a crazy pink explosion or knock a Grunt 300 feet across the map with my hammer than just shoot endlessly respawning terrorists in Modern Warfare. The same goes for the vehicles also. Vehicles like the Banshee, Ghost or even the Mongoose are a lot more fun to play around in than bog-standard military grade vehicles you see in every other FPS out there.

hightower1 wrote: »

Bungie just got shcoked at how well halo 1 did and were terrified to change that up over the years for fear of loosing a cash cow which at this stage is feeling very dated.

Halo has changed a lot since its initial launch in 2001 and all for the better, but at the same time it retained the same core mechanics that just make the game work and have it a lot of fun to play around with. Bungie don't treat the Halo franchise like a cash cow, since they actually actively listen to their fans and trawled feedback data from their forums and the Halo: Reach beta alike to iron out all the major issues so everything could be perfect for launch. I even watched a video of a guy who got banned who was streaming Reach live days before it was supposed to be released. I don't think any other developer would go to such great lengths as Bungie have to care for and protect their prized franchise. They deserve all the praise they get.

hightower1 wrote: »

OP, I would steer clear of the entire serise if I were you, I rember bactracking in combat evolved simply because nearly all the corridors looked idential but start @ combat evolved, hopefully after that you will see the point and give up there.

OP, play the game for yourself and form a valid, informed opinion before you come back and tell us how it is and ignore the trolls. Try playing it with a friend on split-screen. Every Halo campaign has split-screen campaign co-op.

UberPrinny_Baal

-=al=- wrote: »

and yes the 360 is backward compatable unlike some other devices

It's not actually true backwards compatibility, but software emulation that does/doesn't work on a game by game basis.

Here's a list you can click but it shows Halo 1 and 2 on there, so that answers that at least.

For the OP it sort of depends what you want to get out of this experience.
I like the Halo games, but I don't feel there's anything remarkable about them. I like them mostly for their co-op campaigns, then single player second, and probably multiplayer last. The game I dropped the MOST time into was definitely Halo 1, and I have a lot of fond memories of system link multiplayer and legendary co-op (one-shot-killing Hunters with the hilariously broken pistol will never stop being fun )

Personally my interest in the series has waned as it's gone on, but that's just me.

If you want to see the evolution of the series of Halo games: then sure, go for it. It might be somewhat premature given that you don't even know if you like console FPSs at all.

If you want to make sure you're caught up on the plot: then no. Halo plot is pretty light at the best of times, and outright repeats plot elements at the worst of times. Plus as a prequel game there isn't anything you'll need to know.

That's not to say the Halo universe plot is bad. It's an interesting setting, and is expanded on quite nicely in the books. Even these are hit and miss though, with the book Halo Reach is based on being brilliant (Fall of Reach) and the book based on Halo 1 (the Flood) being so bad it almost hurt.

If you want to play through all the single player campaigns: I'd say no. Halo 1 was a repeat offender in re-using level designs over and over again. Halo 2's setting went a bit back and forth and all over the place.

If you want to play through all the co-op campaigns: Absolutely yes. This is probably my favourite thing about Halo, and one of the rare cases these days where you go back to the old staple of "The Split Screen". I'm mad biased here obviously.

If you want nicely refined multiplayer: Just go with Reach, Bungie makes lots of little tweaks with each version, and it would probably feel weird and ungainly to go back a version having played one for any amount of time.

Rob!

Play them in the order they we're developed! It's awesome to watch how the Halo world evolved as the Bungie community grew over the years.

-=al=-

you right about the repeated bits in 1, whats that level toward the end in the snow where you go across bridges really high up into rooms that are all exactly the same! it seems to go on forever

the co op campaign is the best part of it imo + multiplayer is amazing too campaign on my own is the least fav, especially in 1 on legendary when the flood show up, the thought of having to get outa there alone is just annoying!

hightower1

Twilightning wrote: »

Other FPS games released in the last year like what? I sincerely hope you don't mention the likes of Battlefield or Modern Warfare 2, because the graphics within those games aren't anything amazing either. I've played both of them on my 1080p HDTV and I'll always prefer Halo for its colourful light effects and explosions over grubby brown and gun metal grey.

I don't really believe Halo's storyline is highly intricate or original but it still has its moments, plot twists, turns and developments and does a lot more to involve the player and put them in the shoes of the character they're playing as rather than just some faceless mute you play protagonist as in a lot of other games. Reach really went to exemplify this point as whatever Spartan you created when you started up the game was your very own Noble Six for the duration of the campaign and Bungie received praise for this, and rightly so.



What's wrong with the design of the weapons exactly? Most of the weapons in the game range from the subtle to the extreme. Weapons like the Needler or the Gravity Hammer are fairly imaginative and they're a lot more fun to play around with than realistic weapons of other FPS franchises. I'd rather see hordes of galactic aliens detonate in a crazy pink explosion or knock a Grunt 300 feet across the map with my hammer than just shoot endlessly respawning terrorists in Modern Warfare. The same goes for the vehicles also. Vehicles like the Banshee, Ghost or even the Mongoose are a lot more fun to play around in than bog-standard military grade vehicles you see in every other FPS out there.



Halo has changed a lot since its initial launch in 2001 and all for the better, but at the same time it retained the same core mechanics that just make the game work and have it a lot of fun to play around with. Bungie don't treat the Halo franchise like a cash cow, since they actually actively listen to their fans and trawled feedback data from their forums and the Halo: Reach beta alike to iron out all the major issues so everything could be perfect for launch. I even watched a video of a guy who got banned who was streaming Reach live days before it was supposed to be released. I don't think any other developer would go to such great lengths as Bungie have to care for and protect their prized franchise. They deserve all the praise they get.



OP, play the game for yourself and form a valid, informed opinion before you come back and tell us how it is and ignore the trolls. Try playing it with a friend on split-screen. Every Halo campaign has split-screen campaign co-op.

While your entitled to your opinion like we all are, personally I own both MW2 and Reach and think reach is a poor FPS in nearly all senses as per the mods warning we should keep the thread on track
and in line with the OP post yeah.


Oh And ...

Twilightning wrote: »

I'll always prefer Halo for its colourful light effects and explosions over grubby brown and gun metal grey..

If you like the bright halo colours and happy cartoon grunts enemies I hear there are some good deals on Wii's and mario galaxy 2 around

Twilightning

hightower1 wrote: »

While your entitled to your opinion like we all are, personally I own both MW2 and Reach and think reach is a poor FPS in nearly all senses as per the mods warning we should keep the thread on track
and in line with the OP post yeah.

Oh And ...

If you like the bright halo colours and happy cartoon grunts enemies I hear there are some good deals on Wii's and mario galaxy 2 around

I am entitled to my opinion and I think I constructed it and communicated my points well instead of just saying "Yeah let's just stick to the OP and because you like a bit of colour in your games you must be a child."

Try harder, troll.

PandyAndy

If I were you playing them for the first time I'd start from Halo 1. And I'd probably wouldn't bother with ODST and Wars.

You'll enjoy Halo a lot more too if you do a co-op campaign with a friend, and do them all on legendary (Except for Halo 2...).

And enjoy 'The Flood'!

TerrorFirmer

ODST doesn't add much, Wars is fun but not really relevant, Halo 2 has a pretty poor SP, Halo 3 is medicore SP wise, but the original and Reach are great SP games, ideally with a friend for co-op. Multiplayer is where it's at though, reach is phenomenal. Couldn't be bothered playing MW2 anymore.

FutureGuy

hightower1 wrote: »

Oh And ...

If you like the bright halo colours and happy cartoon grunts enemies I hear there are some good deals on Wii's and mario galaxy 2 around

Twilightning wrote: »

I am entitled to my opinion and I think I constructed it and communicated my points well instead of just saying "Yeah let's just stick to the OP and because you like a bit of colour in your games you must be a child."

Try harder, troll.

Guys, please refer to my previous warning at 15:34 yesterday. I said I'd be keeping a close eye on this thread.

Hightower, stating we should listen to the mod and then posting a comment that is clearly made to flame another user is not on. 1 week ban

Twilightning, I have warned people about calling people names/personal abuse. 1 week ban

Thread locked