{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Tartan 118:
5/31/2015 11:35:37 PM
104
Why do people like ODST's Campaign so much more than Reach's?
I mean, sure, Reach was a button-pressing, plot-light military-focused grit-fest. But it was also a technical marvel, with Bungie's first ever space flight level in a game (and the only one to this day), and unprecedented sense of scale and emotion for a Halo title.
I understand that ODST had likeable characters compared with Reach's, but the plot was only slightly less dull than Reach's, and level design was standard Halo fare, nothing truly amazing besides maybe Coastal Highway. Don't get me started on how badly Bungie failed at the open world, something that has infamously continued in Destiny.
-
2 RepliesWhat I still find funny is how Bungie made some hefty assumptions about the audience with Reach - that they already knew what Reach was, what it represented, why the invasion is occurring, what the relationships between the Spartans are, why Spartan-IIIs were on Reach, that Spartan-IIIs were even a thing. But the biggest and funnies assumption it assumes is that we will care about Noble Team and their sacrifices. All of this requires a lot of heavy lifting from the player on the lore side (and people complain about [i]Halo 4[/i] for this), and yet it's the lore community who we can quite safely say felt mostly screwed over. The only assumption that ODST makes is that you've played a bit of Halo 2, which is far more accessible and understandable than the meandering, non-nonsensical events in Reach.
