Mass Effect… Brilliant, but lacking somehow

Mass Effect 2 was recently released a few weeks ago, and has received some stonkingly good reviews all across the board, with final scores ranging from 75% all the way up to 100%. Mass Effect 2 wasn’t a title that I was particularly interested in because I didn’t really play the first one properly. Of course, with all these amazing review scores, and friends everywhere telling me to buy it, I decided to get Mass Effect 1.

My reason for picking up the first game was simply for the story. Mass Effect is an RPG, so it would seem stupid to dive headfirst in to a universe that i’m not familiar with. Fortunately for me, Mass Effect 1 is a damn good game, but its far from perfect, and I certainly wouldn’t hesitate to bitchslap someone who gave it a 10/10 score.

Let me start by just saying that on the whole, Mass Effect is excellent, the visuals are stunning, it’s got an amazing story, the dialogue system is light-years (Pun most definitely intended) ahead of the competition, and the Galaxy Map is a beautiful piece of UI work. It’s clear that Bioware put a lot of love and care in to making this game an absolute masterpiece, and it shows, but ultimately, falls short.

Of course, I don’t know if these issues were fixed in the second game because I haven’t played it yet (Although I certainly plan to), so here are my concerns with the first game in the Mass Effect series.

First of all, the frame rate just falls apart if there are any more than, say, five enemies on screen at once. Mass Effect undeniably looks beautiful, but it all just falls apart during the combat (and sometimes, just in cutscenes). It completely spoils the combat experience of the game. This is the problem that I hope is sorted the most in the sequel.

Another problem with the graphics is the amount of texture pop-in, which was really atrocious, especially in cutscenes when the camera moves from one location to another. Sometimes surfaces can be untextured for a good 5 or 10 seconds until suddenly a texture just pops in to place. Again, another problem that I hope is sorted in the sequel when I pick it up.

Secondly, the Sol System, or rather, our solar system. Bioware did almost nothing with it. There’s a mission on the moon where you have to disable a virtual intelligence that’s gone apeshit, but that’s it. I mean come on, really? Not once do you ever even land on Earth, you never take a look at some of the other human colonies on the moons of Saturn and the satellites around Uranus. Maybe it sounds boring, but it would be really interesting to see what our own civilisation is like hundreds of years in to the future.

My criticisms also expand out to some of the other systems in the game, it seems clear that Bioware were trying to put a large emphasis on exploration here, but most of the planets that you can explore are just barren, desolate places. There might be the occasional mineral deposit, or perhaps a crashed space ship of some sort, but it very rarely expands beyond this.

Even the aforementioned mission on the moon is underwhelming. I mean, this is the closest natural satellite to Earth and there’s nothing there. There’s just some underground military base and that’s it. There’s no city or anything that you can explore. Come on Bioware, give us some interesting planets to explore, rather than barren, desolate places.

I also found the menus to be rather frustrating to work with. Clearing out your inventory to make room for your process, the menus in the game are simply too sluggish and slow to make clearing out your inventory a quick and simple task. What should take a small while can end up eating up about 5 or 10 minutes of play time.

On the whole though, I have to admit that Mass Effect is an enjoyable game, and certainly warrants a play through by anyone who enjoys a good RPG. It creates an amazing sense of atmosphere and has excellent attention to detail, but it’s just a shame about some of the design choices and some of the technical limitations imposed my the Xbox 360.

As someone who is interested in buying the sequel, I would certainly be interested in hearing if these problems have been fixed in Mass Effect 2 or not. Voice your opinions in the comments below, folks.

Sonic the Hedgehog 4… unsure of what to think

Project Needlemouse is something that we’ve known about for months, and a few weeks ago Sega played a little “guessing game” with the community as to who will star in it. Eventually it was revealed that Sonic would be the only playable character in the game, and oh how the Internet rejoiced. However, beyond that there weren’t that many details available to us.

That changed today when Sega released a trailer for the game (which shows about 5 seconds of actual gameplay). The game is confirmed to be a sequel of Sonic 3, which was released way back when on the Sega Mega Drive.

This could be the part where old school gamers will start to foam at the mouth and get nostalgic, but my problem is this: I don’t feel nostalgic for Sonic. I’m one of the few who actually enjoyed Sonic Adventure 2 when I was younger, I actually didn’t find Unleashed to be all that bad, and I also enjoyed the Sonic Advance series on the GBA and the Sonic Rush series on the DS.

Of course, I guess it’s kind of silly to write a blog about a game of which i’ve only seen about 5 seconds of gameplay from, but I still feel slightly concerned. First and foremost: The graphics.

Yes I know graphics aren’t everything, i’ve heard that argument thousands of times, but seriously, look at it. I struggle to believe that this is a game for the Xbox 360 and PS3. The trees in the background are just huge pictures that are just layered on top of one another, it looks like it was copy & pasted from the Megadrive, albeit slightly prettier, i’m still not that impressed by it.

My second issue is based on gameplay – will this be pretty much identical to the older 2D Sonics? If so, then fail. I know that the Homing Attack that’s featured in more recent games will be here, but what about the goddamn boost bar from Rush & Unleashed? It was, in my opinion, one of the more successful gameplay mechanics from recent games, and if the above screenshot is of any indication, then it won’t be there.

Thirdly, is having Sonic as the only playable character really that much of a good thing in the 2D games? I remember playing Sonic Advance on my GBA and being able to play as Sonic, Tails and Knuckles. Each of these characters had unique abilities – Sonic could run the fastest, Tails could fly, and Knuckles could glide and climb up walls. Not only did these three characters make the game more interesting, but they all also added a lot of replay value with them; playing through each level using each characters different abilities made the game a lot more interesting and a lot more fun to play. We won’t have that in Sonic 4; you’re stuck with Sonic.

Finally, the game will be released as episodic chunks through the Xbox Live Arcade, the PlayStation Network, and WiiWare. How much will each episode cost? How long will each episode be? How much will it piss me off to see a “you can’t play any moar until you give us moar moneylol” screen? This all remains to be seen, but I almost certainly won’t like the distribution method. Why not just release the game as a whole package so that I don’t have to mess about with different episodes?

Still, i’ll keep my eyes on the Internet as the game comes closer to its release date, and it’s likely that the trial version on the Xbox Live Arcade will give me an indication as to whether I should spend my Microsoft Space Points or not.

My review of Army of Two: The 40th Day on Wired

A few of you may have noticed that i’ve not blogged about anything in a while. There are two reasons for this:

1) I don’t really have many ideas as to what I can blog about right now. The few ideas that I do have i’m still trying to figure out how to really flesh them out in to a hopefully interesting read.

2) I’ve been reviewing games, well, just a game for the time being, but hopefully that number will grow over the coming months.

Thankfully for me, the editor of Wired.co.uk asked me if I wanted to do some reviews for him, of course I replied with a resounding “Yes” in a heartbeat. The first game that i’ve reviewed was published yesterday (You may have noticed me Tweet about it or mention it on Facebook). You can check out the review in question here.

If you want to check out a full list of reviews that I write for Wired, click on the button below (It’s on the sidebar on the right too). It might not be a perfect method of keeping up-to-date with the games that I review, but hopefully it should work well enough. Alternatively if you keep a track on me on Twitter i’ll probably Tweet whenever a new review gets published.

Worms 2: Armageddon – Worst XBLA game ever?

Earlier this week I purchased Worms 2: Armageddon on the Xbox Live Arcade – it was a meagre 400 Microsoft Points (About £5). I don’t expect much out of a game that only costs a fiver, but some friends of mine had it and we planned to play some multiplayer games on there just to hold us off until something else comes alone (Mass Effect 2, Dante’s Inferno, etc). Just something to keep you occupied, you know.

So the game has a single player campaign – you just complete 30-odd missions, which could be deathmatches, puzzles, or a “Get from point A to point B” objective. These are all fine and well, the single player campaign is pretty solid for a game that’s only a fiver.

This is, however, the first Worms game that i’ve ever bought. And the last Worms game that i’ve played properly was back on the PS1 at my cousins house. Simply put: I’m a newbie to the series. I don’t really know what’s what.

My first problem with Worms 2 is that it explains just about sod all. There are tutorial levels that explain the basics, like how to select weapons, how wind effects weapons, what types of supply crates to look out for… okay, the game actually explains a decent amount of the games mechanics, but it never tells you how to use each individual weapon. Something that a newbie such as myself would have benefitted from greatly.

In my multiplayer sessions with my chums I made an absolute arse of myself. I couldn’t use the Super Sheep, I had no idea what a Bunker Buster was, and what the hell is Buffalo of Lies? These mistakes make for some good lulz the first time you play the game, but after a while it really starts to fray your nerves. Even after playing the tutorial missions, I still feel like I don’t fully understand the games mechanics very well at all.

A lack of understanding of how to play the game is something that you can fix over time, but my next criticism is one that I have absolutely no control over: The game is buggy, especially while it’s being played online. Quite often the game will just freeze without any warning. In fact, I don’t even have to describe it to you. I’ve actually recorded footage of it. It’s such a common occurrence that if you give me an hour or so to play the game online with people that the game will do this. I’m not the only person who suffers from this problem either.

What Halo 3: ODST did right

If you read my blog you could be forgiven for thinking that i’m a miserable fuckwad who does nothing but moan and complain. In particular I seem to find myself complaining about Halo 3: ODST. However sometimes I think that I criticise the game too much – I often make it sound like the worst game that was ever made in the history of gaming ever, which simply is not the case. I’d probably award that to GTA 4, whose only redeeming feature is a glitch involving a swing.

So here’s a blog post dedicated to showing what ODST did right for the frenchise. You should note that this post might contain some spoilers, so if you haven’t played the game you might want to hold off of reading for now.

1- The drop

The orbital drop was, for me, an extremely immersive experience. Bungie pulled this off without fault. Quite simply, you just have to see it to realise how awesome this is.

2- Holy -blam!- moments in campaign

I guess that this sort of ties in with the drop that I mentioned above, but while that was a cutscene, what i’m talking about now happens in-game. While you’re in the game you’ll see some pretty awesome scripted events happen in the distance. My only problem is that I wish that there were more events like this, but it’s a good sign of what we might be able to expect in Halo Reach later this year.

3- Excellent voice acting

While the dialogue itself in ODST can be questionable at times (“Your vote just got overruled”, “Nice of you to drop in trooper”, etc), the lines are always delivered professionally. Nathan Fillion and the rest of the guys from Firefly did an excellent job on the voice acting. It was certainly a step-up from the acting in Halo 3.

4- Amazing soundtrack

With Martin O’Donell composing your music I guess that it’s hard to go wrong, but Marty did an amazing job with the soundtrack in ODST. He did away with the familiar “Monks” in the Halo soundtrack and brought us something new and interesting, and in doing so, he helped give ODST its own distinct identity within the franchise.

5- Firefight is brilliant

Although many claim that Firefight is simply a rip-off of Horde mode in Gears of War 2, the truth is that Firefight is more than that. Sure, you have the typical wave after wave of enemies thing going on, but Halo mixes it up with Skulls that change the way that the game plays. Sometimes enemies might through more grenades, at other times they could be more resistant to bullets. All of these changes make for much more interesting gameplay than Horde can ever provide (Which, incidentally, only increases how much health and damage the enemies deal). If only it had Matchmaking, then Bungie would be on to a real winner.

6- The Superintendent

The Superintendent was a nice touch to the game by Bungie – while you’re travelling through New Mombasa at night, the Superintendent (An Artificial Intelligence that runs the city) keeps an eye on you and actually provides some useful subtle hints to the player as you progress through the game. If there are a group of enemies ahead, the Superintendent will display a sign that says “Caution” or “Warning”, or if you don’t know where to go he’ll create a sign that has an arrow on it pointing to where you’re supposed to go. It’s a brilliant way to try and help the player out without being too “in your face” about it.

What Apple need to do to turn the iPod in to a viable gaming platform

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Apple want the iPod Touch (and the iPhone) to become a viable, mainstream gaming platform. Apple have got publishers like Electronic Arts on-board to help put some big names out there. Even the advertisements for the iPod Touch try to demonstrate that it’s a capable handheld video game console.

Indeed, the iPod Touch is a capable gaming device, it’s capable of rendering 3D graphics, has a touch screen, has an accelerometer (Something that the PSP and Nintendo DS lack), and perhaps best of all: The games on the app store are dirt cheap. A game on the PSP or Nintendo DS are probably going to cost you somewhere from £10 – £30. On the iPod Touch? Most games cost a couple of quid at most. In fact, i’d say that it’s pretty rare to find a game that costs more than £5.

But the iPod Touch still lacks a lot of important things that a games console needs these days. The iPod Touch has a lot of potential. Like I said earlier, it has a touch screen, a web browser (Something that the older models of the DS lacked unless you bought an add-on), media capabilities and so on and so forth. The iPod Touch has potential, it’s just that Apple haven’t fully tapped in to it yet

Physical Buttons

I would go as far as to say that physical buttons on a serious gaming device needs physical buttons. Of course, there are games on the iPod Touch that work well with a Touch Screen (Tap Tap Revenge, Auditorium, Line Rider, etc), but there are others like racing games or action games that are just too difficult to play using a touch screen or the accelerometer. I would therefore propose that Apple release some kind of add-on that attaches itself to the back of the iPod and acts as some extra buttons that you can use. I made a mock-up of what i’m thinking about below:

If Apple made this and sold it at a low price, or maybe if they even bundled it with the iPod itself, then I think that more “hardcore” gamers would start to flock to the iPod Touch, and perhaps most importantly, they’d be more willing to spend their cash on apps and games.

Exclusives

All of the mainstream console manufacturers (Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony) all have franchises that are exclusive to their systems. Microsoft have Halo, Sony have Killzone, and perhaps most famously, Nintendo have Mario. All of these are franchises that people know and love, and it causes people to buy a particular console. Apple don’t have any stand-out franchises on the iPod Touch that are truly mind-blowing.

I believe that Apple should start developing games for the iPod Touch. Or, failing that, they should pump some money in to some of their smaller developers. Investing money in to small developers can reap big rewards. Just look at Bungie and Microsoft – Microsoft invested their money in the right developer and now they’re a publisher of one of todays biggest entertainment franchises. If Apple can do it right, then there’s a lot of money to be made.

A single, unified online platform

Apple have not developed an online gaming platform for the iPod Touch, which has resulted in developers taking matters in to their own hands. It’s all very nice having developers take matters in to their own hands, but the result is a convoluted experience with too many different interfaces. Make a single, unified online service so that people only need one friends list, only one list of achievements, rather than having all of these different services floating about all of the place. Lets just have one service for every game. Apple could learn a lot from Microsoft and their Xbox Live platform.

Attention to retail

Thus far the only way for you to purchase a game for an iPod Touch is to download iTunes, put your card details in, and download the game from there. But what Apple seem to be forgetting is that there are a lot of gamers who are just kids. Little Timmothy isn’t going to have a credit card that he can use whenever he likes when he’s on the computer. What if you could just go in to a store with your iPod, ask a store assistant if they can put, say, Tap Tap Revenge on your iPod, give them the money and be on your way? Apple need to make games accessible to everyone if they want to get the most out of software sales, and given that most parents are computer-illiterate, it would be a good idea to make games available by simply walking in to a shop.

These are four key points that I believe Apple needs to take to make the iPod Touch a viable gaming platform for everyone.  There could be some more that I didn’t mention, so feel free to add in suggestions for what you’d like to see in the comments.

Games journalists need to be more critical of games

This is something that i’ve been meaning to write up for a while now, so i’m finally getting around to it after reading an article that I read earlier (Which i’ll mention later). I believe that games journalists for popular gaming websites, such as IGN, Gamespot, and 1up to name a few are either far too succeptable to hype, or just make a game sound better than it actually is.

Normally when i’m reading a news article I try to shrug off bias that might be in the article – it’s only natural for somebody to have their own opinion on something, and it’s only natural to have an urge to express that opinion. The issue here though, is that what i’m criticising are reviews for games. Reviews are very important to customers, they help you to make a buying decision, and with video games going at about £40 a pop, there’s a lot of money to be spent or wasted based on what a reviewer says.

If I went on to GameSpot and looked up a review of, say, Halo 3: ODST, then i’d think that the game was absolutely brilliant – scoring a 9/10 and worth the £40 price tag. Lets take a look at Gamespot UK’s written review for Halo 3: ODST.

Because you can die much more easily in ODST than in Halo 3, you will have to approach combat in a more tactical way by skirting around the outside of the fray instead of rushing in guns blazing. Having to be constantly mindful of your own vulnerability in a Halo game is a welcome change of pace, and is a key element in some of the most thrilling situations in the game.

- Gamespot UK’s review of Halo 3: ODST

This whole “you can die much more easily” thing is nothing but a straight-up lie as far as ODST is concerned. The game is by far the easiest of all of the Halo games even when played on Legendary. You can, in fact, quite easily charge in to the thick of battle, kill everything in sight, and get out of the fight without even leaving a scratch. The simple fact is that there wasn’t any change of pace in ODST – it was just another Halo 3.

The campaign is shorter than those in previous games, but there is still plenty to do when you finish your quest.

- Gamespot UK’s review of Halo 3: ODST

This is perhaps the worst of the comments that I see about ODST in reviews. They imply that there’s a lot of replay value to be had when, in fact, there isn’t. ODST’s campaign is about 4 – 6 hours at most, there are some audiologs and Firefight can keep you occupied for a little while, but ODST doesn’t provide as much gameplay as journalists like to imply. Sure, there’s the bundled multiplayer disc, but content that i’ve been playing for 2 years now is only going to provide so much re-playability.

I feel like i’m picking on Gamespot here, but the truth is that all of the mainstream gaming websites are guilty of this. Why would you give a game that doesn’t have any multiplayer and a short campaign a 9/10? I don’t know about you guys, but I prefer a little bit more for my money than a 4 hour campaign and a survival mode that’s a complete and utter lag fest.

What is the point in having reviews when they can’t be trusted? Instead of using established websites like IGN or Gamespot, I often have to resort to looking at what I like to call independent reviewers – the little guys like Angry Joe or Blistered Thumbs. My point is that mainstream sites need to be more critical to the games that they review. When a game like Halo 3: ODST gets scores like 9 or 8 out of 10, then I think that something is wrong. In fact, I find it even more confusing how a website like IGN makes a review of ODST and gives it an 8.6/10, and then gives us an article a few months later about how the game is mediocre at best – the opinion article about it is more critical of the game than the review is! This isn’t the first time that a popular gaming website has had a bit of a credibility fail either.

My games of the year for 2009

2009 has come to a close, and I guess that it’s time to do the obligatory recap of the year. Without further adieu, lets take a look at my top five favourite games of 2009.

5- Battlefield 1943

For £10 you can’t really go wrong, but Battlefield 1943 offers amazing bang-for-buck for your money. £10 gets you three maps (or four if you include Coral Sea), 24 player multiplayer, dedicated servers and online stat tracking. I’d say that’s pretty good value for money. The only downside to this is that the original Battlefield: Bad Company costs about the same these days, and has more content.

The game is totally devoid of any single player component other than a tutorial, but if you’re a fan of large-scale multiplayer battles then 1943 is a solid choice to go with, and is well worth the download.

4- Borderlands

Borderlands is a difficult game to describe, it’s mostly a First Person Shooter, but it also has elements from RPGs like levelling-up, quests, and allocating skill points. It’s a combination of genres that works extremely well, although the game is really meant to be played co-operatively with a friend, which is when the game starts to get a lot more fun than if you play it by yourself. The game has often been compared to the likes of Fallout 3.

It’s not a very story driven game, but it is a lot of fun to play, and the different classes that the game has on offer allows for potentially hundreds of hours of gameplay, the little dialogue that’s in the game provides some good comic relief as well. Borderlands is well worth picking up for anybody who’s a fan of FPS games.

3- Batman: Arkham Asylum

This game is just pure quality. The environments were great, the voice acting was superb, and Rocksteady even somehow managed to make stealthy gameplay enjoyable. The whole game was extremely well done, and I feel like what i’m writing here isn’t doing this game justice.

The combat system was excellent, because it required a degree of precision to use well. It wasn’t just mindless button mashing that we’re accustomed to in similar beat ‘em up titles. The game is just amazing, if you liked The Dark Knight (the movie) then you’ll probably like this game too.

2- Modern Warfare 2

You knew it would be here somewhere. Modern Warfare 2 is on just about everyone’s GOTY lists, and for good reason: it’s epic from start to finish. The game isn’t anything like Mass Effect or Bioshock in terms of its story telling, it’s more like an action movie – mindless, but a lot of fun. While playing the game you’ll have exciting chases, escape from exploding buildings in the nick of time, and you’ll probably blow some shit up too.

Of course it’s the multiplayer that’s where the majority of people will be spending most of their time on, and Modern Warfare does an excellent job of it. It doesn’t revolutionize multiplayer like the original Modern Warfare did back in 2007, but it does an excellent job at refining it. Things that plagued the first games multiplayer like Martyrdom have either been removed, or their presence has been significantly reduced. Anybody who’s a fan of FPS games owes it to themselves to get this game.

1- Assassins Creed 2

Assassins Creed 2 is a perfect example of what a sequel should be, it rectifies nearly all of the problems with the original game. Assassins Creed 2 is also packed of stuff to do, you can do the main story, but after that you’ve got all sorts of side quests to do, you can unlock Altaïr’s Armour, you can renovate your family villa, plus there’s a few other things that I won’t mention due to spoilers.

Assassins Creed 2 is also home to what I believe to be one of the most underrated soundtracks in recent memory, and also has a pretty compelling story to go with it. I have to admit that it was a tough call between Assassins Creed 2 and Modern Warfare 2, but I think that in the long run, I appreciate AC2 a lot more than I appreciate MW2.

Those are my games of the year. 2009 was a good year for gaming, but 2010 looks set to be even better. There’s a ridiculous amount of titles that i’m interested in this year.

MW2 multiplayer in danger of becoming unfun

Now I love Modern Warfare 2 – it’s by far my multiplayer game of choice right now. If I ever feel like pwning teh newbz over the Interweb, Modern Warfare 2 is the game that i’ll do it in. However, i’m noticing a lot of things lately that, if enough people exploit it, can and will completely ruin the game for me.

First problem is the Stinger, which I spoke about in my video review for the game. I suppose that the Javelin can be part of this issue as well, but I find that the Stinger is the main culprit to the lack of fun here. The issue? The Stinger pretty much ruins the point of any kind of killstreak (With the exception of airstrikes – expect the Harrier). All the user of the Stinger has to do is aim, fire, and bam. That helicopter you worked hard on getting? Yeah, it got blown to bits about 5 seconds after you called it in.

The problem for me is that the Killstreaks are what make Modern Warfare 2 so bloody fun. The perks and weapon customisation options are nice, but it’s a pretty awesome feeling when you’re the guy who calls in a Pavelow to help your team out. Said awesomeness is diminished when someone just effortlessly takes it out instantly. It leads to an unrewarding and unfulfilled gameplay experience. Take it from somone who whores the Stinger – taking Killstreaks out with it is easy.

The second problem is the bloody party chat block. Although this block doesn’t apply for all playlists, it’s still a royal pain in the arse when it effects you. After a day of work the last thing I want to hear is some arsehole from the other side of the planet playing music in to his headset, or having a tantrum every time he gets killed. It just means that I have to mute everyone when starting a game, when i’d much rather be talking to a friend.

The third problem with the game, and this is more of an issue with the players of the game rather than the developers, but some times you just can’t help but think that certain maps are designed in a way to promote camping. You could walk past a bin, and when you walk past it, you get knifed in the back, because someone’s just sitting behind it. You can even tell when someone’s camping, because they’re just crouching there doing nothing, and when you appear on screen, they suddenly burst in to motion.

Certain maps are really bad for this. Terminal in particular is a haven for campers – there are a lot of  little nooks that players can hide away in. It’s not like those spots appear by accident – there’s a 3D modeller out there somewhere who obviously decided that these spaces would be a good idea, but I beg to differ. There’s nothing more frustrating than being killed by someone who’s just sitting there doing nothing.

Finally, the Model 1887 shotguns ruin the game for me, especially when someone is using the Akimbo perk with them (Which allows you to use two at once). I’m not quite at a high enough level to get this weapon yet, but i’ve been on the receiving end of dual 1887’s far too many times. I even picked some up once and quickly saw why so many people use them – they’re grossly overpowered. I managed to kill someone at medium range with dual 1887’s once with a single shot – and that’s no exaggeration. Infinity Ward should either remove the ability to use these weapons with the Akimbo perk, or just remove them all together. I can’t understand why they’re in a game about modern day combat anyway, seeing that the gun was discontinued in 1920.

Like I said, I love Modern Warfare 2, and it’s easily my favourite multiplayer game out there so far, but it’s these issues that might kill my love for the game at some point in the future.

Halo Reach VGA Trailer

So yesterday we had the 2009 Video Game Awards, well, those of you that were awake did, that is. I was busy sleeping, but when I woke-up, the trailer was there in downloadable form, and, well, I watched it. You should probably watch it too before you go reading the rest of this post. See? There’s a handy YouTube video above. Aren’t I thoughtful?

Initial impressions? I don’t know how to feel. The music is awesome, but that’s a given with Martin O’Donnell composing it, i’m not too sure on the Spartan with the face scratched on to his helmet, at first I thought it looked kind of silly, but after a while i’m growing to like it. It should help to give the Spartan some personality.

This is near the beginning of the trailer, you pretty much get a shot of the landscape of Reach, and is the first real shot that you get of the games engine, which I have to say, looks pretty ‘effing sweet. It does away with the cartoony visuals of Halo 3 and gives us a slightly darker colour palette, which in my opinion, is a good thing. You can also see a Warthog on the ground, and you can also see two ships in the air, that look like a cross between the Hawks in Halo Wars, and the Hornets in Halo 3.

Next up we have a shot of a Spartan, you can see a lot more details in his armour as opposed to the armour of the Master Chief in Halo 3, he also looks a bit bulkier. While watching this trailer I was trying to find out if the leaked Halo Reach screenshots released earlier this year were real or fake, and if the design of that rifle on the Spartans back is anything to go by, then i’m going to have to say that yes, those screenshots were in fact, real.

This is the aforementioned Spartan with the face scratched on his helmet. Like I said earlier, it looked kind of stupid to me at first, but it’s certainly something that i’m starting to like (Even though it’s a bit ridiculous, but that’s the appeal). Also, he seems to be holding a combat knife of some sort, whether the Combat knife will be a new melee weapon, or if it’ll replace the melee (Like in Call of Duty or Borderlands) is unknown.

Another shot of some Spartans. This is a good shot to look at to get a look at the different armour variations in the game, the helmet that the Sniper is wearing looks like a cross between the Recon and the Scout helmet that were in Halo 3’s multiplayer. The Sniper Rifle also returns, the scope for it looks similar to the scope of the Halo 1 Sniper Rifle.

Epic explosion is epic. Perhaps something that’s interesting to note is the river off in the distance, which looks either dried up due to glassing, or it might just look like that because we’re looking at it from a distance. According to Bungie, this trailer is a snippet of the first cutscene in the game, so the first level might actually involve your ships being shot out of the sky, and having to find your team mates that are scattered. But remember that that’s only speculation on my part.

Holy shit!