This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff.
Do I even have to say it? With the title "Why Halo: Reach's Story Is Bad, Even for a Video Game," you bet there are going to be spoilers.
I know a lot of you love the Halo series — heck, I do, too. That's why it's hard for me to say this: Halo: Reach's story is bad. Like, really bad.
The first three Halos — I don't count Halo 3: ODST, as it's an expansion — had solid narratives. Sure, these games' stories weren't amazing, but they kept me intrigued. Suspense, action, plot twists — it was all there.
Halo: Reach, on the other hand, has none of that — and then some. The game's narrative is the archetype of bad storytelling: bland characters; a dull, confusing narrative; and a lack of suspense.
No, I'm not one of those fans that's disappointed that Reach isn't like Halo: The Fall of Reach, the novel some thought the game would be based on. I've never read a Halo novel, so I'm oblivious as to how close the game follows the book's plot. I just wanted Reach to be like the other Halo games and deliver a good action story. And it failed.
So I'm going to outline my main beefs with Reach's story. Yeah, I'm sure you've heard some of these by now. But that's not going to stop me from throwing in my couple cents.
On to the critique!
Dumping grounds
It's hard to write an article about a game's story if you don't understand it. I've played through Reach multiple times, and I still don't fully grasp its plot.
Yeah, I get the gist of the story: the Convenant invades Reach because they want some religious artifacts (or something). My problem is that I don't know what I'm doing from one mission to the next.
One minute, I'm defending a human space fleet in a Tie Fighter. The next, I'm planting a bomb in a Covenant ship. The minute after that, I'm storming my way up a beach like it was Normandy circa 1944.
I realize the game explains why I'm doing these things, but those explanations fly by before I have a chance to say, "Um, you want me to do what?" It seems like Bungie just wanted to dump the player into cool battles, regardless if they contextualized the situation.
Don't get me wrong — some of those situations are bad-ass. I had so much fun defending the scientist's base at the end of "The Package" that I didn't care why I was in a weird, frozen cave miles below the surface. But most of the time, I felt like a Spartan without a purpose.
And you are?
Halo has never been character-driven. Master Chief is as deep as the tire tread on a Warthog wheel, and the most developed character in the game is a naked, purple female A.I. that resides in the back of Chief's head. But the Spartans in Reach make these two look as complex as Ernest Hemingway characters.
The Noble Team is so dull that the only way I know its members is by their guns. There's Chain-Gun Guy, who seems to be one of the leaders of the team. Sniper-Rifle Guy, whom I hate because he won't let me swap guns with him. Guy-with-a-Skull-on-His-Visor, who doesn't actually have a memorable gun, but who does have a skull on his visor.
Then there's the female character, whose name is Kat. So not only is she dull — she's also named after a feline.
I am woman. Feel me bore.
As for character development? The most we get of that is when Chain-Gun Guy says "Mum?" to that woman scientist in the cutscene between the "ONI: Sword Base" and "Nightfall" missions. The woman he calls Mum responds, "What have you done with my armor?" Chain-Gun Guy coyly says, "Um … just some additions I've made."
This is the deepest character interaction in the game, and it fails for a few reasons. Firstly, I don't know who Mum is. Is she Chain-Gun Guy's actual mum? Or is "Mum" a weird pet name for his former lover? (I can't tell if Mum is 35 or 65.)
Secondly, why would I give a shit about this relationship? Mum isn't mentioned in the story previously to this, so I have no connection to her and Chain-Gun Guy's relationship. Did Bungie want this to be a throwaway exchange, or was I actually supposed to care about it?
Also, Reach is short on cool bad guys. The previous Halos had sweet baddies like Guilty Spark 343 and Gravemind. Reach has a bunch of faceless Elites and Grunts. Where's that one villain to unite them all?
Prequel-itis
Reach's story had one handicap from the outset: it's a prequel.
I dislike the idea of prequels — they lack tension because you know how the story turns out.
I know that the Covenant glasses Reach before the events of Halo: Combat Evolved take place. I know Master Chief eventually thwarts the Covenant, and he and Cortana leisurely float in a spaceship towards Planet Scary. I know the humans made some nice Brute-skinned rugs after the battle for Earth was over.
Knowing what I know, Reach's story doesn't have much left to draw me in.
Reach, post-glassing
I realize this problem is partly my own fault. Since I knew Reach was a prequel before I played it, how could I criticize that aspect of it?
Although prequels aren't my cup of Lipton, I still think it's their duty to provide an engaging narrative. Give me interesting characters, a coherent plot … something to hold my interest. Reach provided the opposite of that.
Look, I like Halo as much as the next Grade-One Captain. I'm picking on Reach's story out of love, not because I'm a jaded gamer. Halo is a great franchise, and I want — and expect — it to provide an engaging experience. So it's a bummer that the supposed final game in the series has such a boring, messy narrative. Now that I've finished Reach on Legendary, I don't think I'll touch its campaign mode again. It just doesn't have the same allure the previous Halo campaigns had.
So I'm going to stick to scrapping with strangers online. At least they have more personality than Team Noble.
What do other Halo fans think? Is Reach's story satisfying? Or is it a hodgepodge narrative mishaps? (I am donning my flame-retardant suit for this article, but I hope it won't be necessary.)