I should have clarified, but I meant "The last Halo" in a metaphorical sense. Some people criticizing the experimentation in Reach and ODST feel that Halo 3 was the last game worth playing. It's a common criticism I see often, but I was hoping to draw more specific critiques from those gamers, just to see their side of things. I think Reach definitely was a Halo in terms of its visual styles, multiplayer options and other things, but comparing Halo 3, the last of the original trilogy, to Reach is a big stretch to me. In Halo 3 it's the whole "Space Opera" idea where you're out destroying huge forerunner structures, fighting the Flood, etc., where Reach was much more visceral. A lot of people died in Reach, you know? I feel like it could have been something made by a totally different studio, just because of how much Bungie had learned about "feelings" from ODST. "A man who has read Moby Dick is a different man than the one who has not read Moby Dick." With ODST, I feel like Bungie broke out of their "Our main character is an invincible sprinting tank" formula, and matured to "Our main character is not invincible, nor is his team, he is just very skilled, and very lucky" With details like, in Winter Contingency, when Carter knocks the Elite Zealot off of Noble 6, 6 grabs his assault rifle, and there are 7 rounds left in the clip (during the cinematic). It was a close call, but with a whole lot of luck to thank. Reach was made by a more mature studio than Halo 3 was, so I wanted to encourage discussion about what aspects of Bungie's design - specifically - we feel have matured, and then extrapolate into what we think might happen in Destiny as a result of this maturity. Hope this makes sense.

The differences between Halo 1 and 2 were definitely significant, but with the same character, it might have limited how different they could make the story. Making new characters in ODST freed them up a little bit. If what you mean by "set-pieces" is the level design, then I would have to disagree. In Halos 1-3 there is nothing as personal as the scene in Reach where the ship full of evacuees gets shot down and sinks, and I think that the emphasis in the game on death, including the "death" of the planet, really /does/ make a difference. There also isn't as much comic relief as a result - no Sergeant Johnson. I agree that it is a Halo game, and the fact that it takes place in a single location, like CE, is a great point. I also think the gameplay in Reach is similarly streamlined, even though they added a bunch more weapons and abilities. Somehow, it works, and I don't think you mean closer to CE in a regressive sense, so Bungie must be nailing down what it is that made Halo 1 so fun to play and explore.