New to Halo series...

J

jedolley

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
1,158
I have never really played the Halo series before (played alittle bit of the first one). With the Halo Anniversary edition coming out I'm interested in getting into it. I had heard that Halo Reach was a prequel to the Halo 1. I was wondering if I should play Halo Reach before the Anniversary comes out? Also, how does ODST fit into the storyline? Is it a must play (in regards to the story) and when should I play it (between or after which game in the series)?

P.S. I don't really care about multiplayer, just interested in playing the Halo series.
 
jedolley said:
I have never really played the Halo series before (played alittle bit of the first one). With the Halo Anniversary edition coming out I'm interested in getting into it. I had heard that Halo Reach was a prequel to the Halo 1. I was wondering if I should play Halo Reach before the Anniversary comes out? Also, how does ODST fit into the storyline? Is it a must play (in regards to the story) and when should I play it (between or after which game in the series)?

P.S. I don't really care about multiplayer, just interested in playing the Halo series.
Click to expand...

ODST I believe is during Halo 2.

Personally I would play in this order:

Halo Anniversary
Halo 2 (works great on 360)
Halo 3
Halo Reach
ODST

ODST is a throwaway. The game is an obvious cash grab and the single player is garbage.
 
Gooch3008 said:
run for the hills. run for your life.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

It's a decent game, but you don't have to play it to understand Halo:CE(A) as the first three games were contained within their own story arc. It doesn't really tell you about the origins of the Master Chief and others from Halo/2/3, and a lot fans had a problem with some of the big gaping continuity errors towards the ending. Despite that, the levels do have quite a scenery and you do get this feeling that everything on the planet is progressively going towards hell with each mission.

If you want some better story background before jumping into the Halo series, I'd suggest picking up some of the books. Particularly "The Fall of Reach."
 
I find Halo to be one of the more enjoyable FPS series I've played on 360, both for gameplay and story. While some like Gooch may not enjoy it, it is of course a matter of taste; try it and decide for yourself.

From a story standpoint I don't believe you'd mess anything up by playing Reach first; it ties into the first game loosely, but for the most part it stands alone.

ODST takes place during the events of Halo 2, so I suppose you could play it after Halo 2. ODST was my second-favorite story after Reach, but maybe that's because I'm a fan of Nathan Fillion and Tricia Helfer:)

I played them all in order: Halo, Halo2, Halo 3, ODST, and Reach. I didn't feel like I missed anything story-wise by playing one before the other.

One thing you should bear in mind: The gameplay mechanics have evolved every iteration; Reach's gameplay does feel more complex and fresh compared to the original, in my opinion. As they have made very clear that Halo Anniversary has the same gameplay as the original version, you might find it somewhat jarring to go from Reach back to Anniversary.

Then again, if you play other FPSes, you may find playing Anniversary feeling 'older' anyway!

Hope this helps.
 
I pretty much agree with TexasAg05.

Play them in order. I liked ODST myself. It was nice for something different.
 
TexasAg05 said:
I find Halo to be one of the more enjoyable FPS series I've played on 360, both for gameplay and story. While some like Gooch may not enjoy it, it is of course a matter of taste; try it and decide for yourself.

From a story standpoint I don't believe you'd mess anything up by playing Reach first; it ties into the first game loosely, but for the most part it stands alone.

ODST takes place during the events of Halo 2, so I suppose you could play it after Halo 2. ODST was my second-favorite story after Reach, but maybe that's because I'm a fan of Nathan Fillion and Tricia Helfer:)

I played them all in order: Halo, Halo2, Halo 3, ODST, and Reach. I didn't feel like I missed anything story-wise by playing one before the other.

One thing you should bear in mind: The gameplay mechanics have evolved every iteration; Reach's gameplay does feel more complex and fresh compared to the original, in my opinion. As they have made very clear that Halo Anniversary has the same gameplay as the original version, you might find it somewhat jarring to go from Reach back to Anniversary.

Then again, if you play other FPSes, you may find playing Anniversary feeling 'older' anyway!

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums up the way I feel about the series and about how I would recommend people playing them. There might be a temptation to play Reach first given where it fits in the story arch but I would say that you'll appreciate it more if you play it last. Enjoy!
 
Actually enjoyed parts of halo 2 but found it to have zero multiplayer or replay appeal. The series is highly overrated to pc gamers but I can see how it appealed to younger console gamers who haven't had much exposure to fps games and more specifically multiplayer fps titles. Very generic feel to these games. Nothing new brought to the table.

my original comment was predicting the onslaught of people bashing the series. I might have been wrong.
 
Thanks for the info everyone! Anyone know if they are planning on "re-mastering" Halo 2 like they are doing with Halo 1?
 
There haven't been any announcements, but there's definitely some anticipation. I wouldn't expect a remake to show up until 2014 and even then I have my doubts.

However, one of the MP maps from Halo 2 will be in Halo:CEA (Headlong).
 
jedolley said:
P.S. I don't really care about multiplayer, just interested in playing the Halo series.
Click to expand...

I love that you said this. I'm not a multiplayer person -- just in it for the Story. And if CE does Halo:CE justice, you're in for a real treat. I would even recommend firing up the XBox version if they weren't making a CE version, it was just that good.

To me, the big games in the halo series are 1-3. It's a big story arc that really is worth playing through. Unfortunately, I liked them in that order too - 1 was the best, 2 wasn't quite as good as one, and even though the graphics were amazing, I didn't like 3 as much as 1 either. There was just something about it that sat well with me. And I have to say -- I've been gaming for 20+ years, and in that time, I've learned to HATE FPS games. I just don't enjoy them, they're not my thing. With that said -- Halo:CE is one of my all time favorite games.
 
Personally I would play in this order:

Halo Reach
Halo Anniversary
Halo 2 (works great on 360)
ODST
Halo 3
 
Demon10000 said:
I love that you said this. I'm not a multiplayer person -- just in it for the Story. And if CE does Halo:CE justice, you're in for a real treat. I would even recommend firing up the XBox version if they weren't making a CE version, it was just that good.

To me, the big games in the halo series are 1-3. It's a big story arc that really is worth playing through. Unfortunately, I liked them in that order too - 1 was the best, 2 wasn't quite as good as one, and even though the graphics were amazing, I didn't like 3 as much as 1 either. There was just something about it that sat well with me. And I have to say -- I've been gaming for 20+ years, and in that time, I've learned to HATE FPS games. I just don't enjoy them, they're not my thing. With that said -- Halo:CE is one of my all time favorite games.
Click to expand...

I would not say that I hate FPS games, but will admit that it is not my favorite genre. With that said, I think your statement along with most of the others is helping me look forward to Anniversary.
 
jedolley said:
Thanks for the info everyone! Anyone know if they are planning on "re-mastering" Halo 2 like they are doing with Halo 1?
Click to expand...

Highly doubtful , they will be very busy with Halo 4 and they promised it was another 3 part series so 2 full Halo games after that.

As far as the franchise is concerned don't listen to any hate , its very well fleshed out and interesting but I would wait for new Halo HD edition this November and play it first. Then the second (which will work fine a 360) then so on and so forth.

Its truly a fantastic series and way to much hate is attached to it.
 
Godmachine said:
Its truly a fantastic series and way to much hate is attached to it.
Click to expand...
Fair or unfair, people still harbor anger about the buyout and switch from PC/Mac development to Xbox exclusive. When the PC version did come out, I tried to give it a fair shake. I think it was a pretty enjoyable game except for the repeated levels. Unfortunately that was, or at least felt like, 40% of the game.
 
I'm going to try to hold out for Anniversary and play that. I have a few games I am playing right now, so that should keep me occupied until then.
 
I would say to go ahead and play them in the order they were released. Reach may come first timeline wise, but you'll appreciate the game so much more if you play it last.
 
bpizzle1 said:
I would say to go ahead and play them in the order they were released. Reach may come first timeline wise, but you'll appreciate the game so much more if you play it last.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. Reach was a great gaming experience and much more polished than the first 3.

I enjoyed playing them in the original order, 1, 2, 3 then Reach... haven't played ODST yet... but I really enjoyed Reach and would save that for last.

Enjoy the series it's epic and gets better as you go along. :cool:
 
I would also suggest checking out the books too. I loved the story the Halo but I could never get into the games; I decided to read the books instead and got hooked on them, used Wikipedia and some other sources to get the story from the games. The book Fall of Reach was pretty damn awesome. I wish they had made a game based on that......
 
bpizzle1 said:
I would say to go ahead and play them in the order they were released. Reach may come first timeline wise, but you'll appreciate the game so much more if you play it last.
Click to expand...

+1. Reach was a treat, even though you know what's being led up to, it was still an awesome ride to get there.

Halo Anniversary -> Halo 2 -> Halo 3 -> ODST -> Reach. In that order.

Halo 2 was the biggest weak point in the series, IMO. Fun, but still a let-down.
 
I liked ODST as that made you play a different role. Seeing things from fresh preservative. I remember my first hunter fight...before as Master Chief not a big deal....but now..check your ammo, check your heath and plan the fight :p
 
These questions always crack me up. Any story, no matter if it's in books, movies, games, or whatever, should be experienced in the original order of release. A prequel isn't something that's designed to prepare the audience for the narrative. It's designed to flesh out a storyline the audience is already familiar with.

Halo is great, btw. It catches a lot of grief from some people, but very little of it is deserved. The vehicles are some of the most fun ever in a FPS, and the Covenant are really great enemies.

You are probably best off starting with Halo Anniversary. If getting the whole storyline is super important to you, play Halo 2, 3, ODST and Reach in that order afterwards. IMO, unless Halo is really, really fun for you, skip 2, 3 and ODST and jump right into Reach. It's the best game in the series.
 
I liked ODST as well, since it was a change of pace, and the things you got away with as Master Chief you couldn't necessarily pull off in this game. The ammo is scarcer, making strategy and ammo conservation in firefights a bit more important.
 
I felt like they really phoned in some of ODST, especially the whole aspect of not being a Spartan. Master Chief is a crazy robot that can flip cars, jump 10 feet in the air and smash 600 pound gorilla aliens to death with his bare hands. But... so can an ODST? There was an opportunity there to shake up Halo's "holy trinity" of guns, melee and grenades, but instead they just made ODST play almost exactly like Master Chief, only with Halo 1 style health. Pretty lame, IMO.
 
This is how i look at the series overall: The single player experience has typically been very good, though multiplayer has been where the series really shines. Story is generally solid, though it borrows a lot from various things. Some don't like that, saying "Its generic, etc...". But in this day and age, what hasn't been done before? Like goldeneye/perfect dark, the multiplayer aspect gives you a ton of options and gamers are always coming up with more ideas and new game types. While it cant be modded, like most pc games its still amazing to see some of the game types that pop up. Also these games were meant to be played for a while, unlike Call of Duty, so bungie, is constantly changing/adding new gametypes to the playlist. You really should give the multi a go though.

I would play the games in release order, because its kinda neat to see how gaming has evolved graphically and from a game designing point of view. Though, reach can be argued to be a step back in some ways from Halo 3. While i thoroughly enjoy reach, they did mess up on a couple things. Some of which is supposed to be fixed in new update.

A little about each game.
Halo 1: Story good. Multi good. A little rough around the edges in gameplay.
Halo 2: Story is decent though kinda dual persona. Its split between 2 sides and doesnt seem to quite gel. Like they left something out of it. Multiplayer is where 2 was a vast improvement over 1. To a lot of games, it was revolutionary.
Halo 3 story is decent and wraps up the original story arc.The multiplayer is continued refinements of halo 2, so nothing revolutionary but evolution.
Halo ODST: They really focused on the story, and so the story is genereally tight and fun (especially if your a fan of the Firefly/Serenity series.
Halo Reach: The Story telling is very good, the best in the series, though some issues with it tying into the others. Multi, some like it, some dont. It feels a step forward and backwards. Though it looks like the tittle update (patch) will fix alot of the issues people have with it.

I so wish quake 2 had the ease of use multiplayer thats been available in the halo 2 and on. For that matter all the quake series! This does seem like where they got most of the ideas about Quake live.
 
RIPATI said:
I felt like they really phoned in some of ODST, especially the whole aspect of not being a Spartan. Master Chief is a crazy robot that can flip cars, jump 10 feet in the air and smash 600 pound gorilla aliens to death with his bare hands. But... so can an ODST? There was an opportunity there to shake up Halo's "holy trinity" of guns, melee and grenades, but instead they just made ODST play almost exactly like Master Chief, only with Halo 1 style health. Pretty lame, IMO.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed the lacking Spartan story line in ODST. It was refreshing to see the game from a different perspective. Although being an ODST wasn't as powerful as being a Spartan , you have soldiers all around you as Master Chief and other Spartans in the series so its cool to see how it all plays out. Plus ODST introduced Firefight mode which I found very fun.

Side Note : Master Chief is not a robot , he's a clone .. a highly specialized and modified clone. As are all Spartans.
 
Godmachine said:
Side Note : Master Chief is not a robot , he's a clone .. a highly specialized and modified clone. As are all Spartans.
Click to expand...
Uh, what?? The Master Chief and all other Spartans started out as children, children who were stolen and conscripted at the age of 6. They were flashed cloned and those clones replaced them. The flash clones aren't meant to take their place, they live for a certain amount of time and then start breaking down and evidently die in a few years.

Anyways, Spartans are stolen children who are trained since a very young age in warefare and team work. Around 12/13 they go through the enhancement process where their bones are reinforced, their bodies and flexes are amped up, etc.

But they are not clones. :rolleyes:
 
CrimandEvil said:
Uh, what?? The Master Chief and all other Spartans started out as children, children who were stolen and conscripted at the age of 6. They were flashed cloned and those clones replaced them. The flash clones aren't meant to take their place, they live for a certain amount of time and then start breaking down and evidently die in a few years.

Anyways, Spartans are stolen children who are trained since a very young age in warefare and team work. Around 12/13 they go through the enhancement process where their bones are reinforced, their bodies and flexes are amped up, etc.

But they are not clones. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Right I mixed up that , they are REPLACED by clones but the real children are "enhanced" and trained to become Spartan's. However my correction is still somewhat valid as they still aren't full fledged robots (you could however say they are cyborg's) :p
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed the single player in the ones I've played (CE, 2, 3, Reach) but never much cared for multiplayer outside of CE. They killed the pistol in 2, which was just a game breaker for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top