Halo 4: The Community Preview Debate

I recently participated in a conversation article here on 1up with 1up associate editor Jose Otero that covered the recent influx of news regarding Halo 4. You can find the first part here:
Halo 4: The Community Preview Debate
And you can find the second part here:
Halo 4: The Community Preview Debate, Part Two
I also have a Halo 4 news blog that I've been updating as more info becomes available, and I made a pretty big update to it yesterday. You can check it out here:
A Deeper Look at Halo 4 So Far - Update # 3
Check it out and if you want, join the conversation in the comments.
Update: I just updated my Halo 4 news blog with a bunch of new images of Halo 4, click the above link to check them out.

The Worth of Video Games

Video games have been around for quite a long time now. The history of video games can be traced back far beyond the Atari and Pong. As a matter fact, the idea of video games can be traced back as far as the 1940's. Since their inception, video games have captivated people and challenged their understanding of what entertainment could be. They are are unique among all forms of entertainment in that they interact with three of the five human senses: sight, hearing, and touch. They are also the only form of entertainment that has a very good chance of eventually using all five.
                             
Video games also challenge us mentally, improving skills such as problem solving, eye to hand coordination, and many others. There have ven been many, many studies conducted over the years proving the positive impact that games can have on the human psyche. Unfortunately this fact hasn't stopped video games from being blamed for all types of atrocities, by those who were looking for a scape goat to society's problems, but this is a problem that will fade away with the passage of time. The biggest enemy of video games thus far has been ignorance; so as time progresses and the number of people who don't understand video games decreases, so will the problems that face them.
                             
The impact of video games on society has been significant, to say the least. For starters, the video game industry, in it's young life, has already eclipsed that of it's older siblings in terms of yearly sales. Games like Halo and Call of Duty have repeatedly shattered opening day sales across all forms of entertainment. Video games have also played a large role in the progress of computer technology with their high demands on processing power and memory. One has to wonder where computer technology would be right now without video games. Would we even have dedicated graphics processors and sound processors, or super high end machines? Think of the markets that exist because of video games.
                             
It constantly amazes me how much video games have changed in the last 30 years. When I was a kid, I was lucky enough to live on a street full of other kids. This was especially beneficial when it came to video games, since at that time you needed another person to play multiplayer games with. But today, kids like my son who may not have many, if any, other kids to play with in person, can still spend time together through their gaming machines. I've seen my son and his friends, who live out of town, just hang out in their rooms and talk to each other while using video Kinect. He spends more time watching Netflix than he does normal broadcast television and many times watches Neflix with his friends. Video games have become a very efficient tool for human interaction and fostering relationships.
                             
But in the last decade, as video games have become more realistic and taken the lead as new king of the hill in terms of revenue, the question of where video games fit in has been brought front and center. Far too often we hear people, often people from within the gaming community, speaking negatively about the state of video games. Many criticize their ability to tell "adult" stories, while others point to a lack of innovation. But these claims tend to come from a minority, rather than a majority. Sometimes they come from people outside of the video game industry, people who feel threatened by the success of video games.
                            
But in reality, video games do tell adult stories. They tell fantastic stories of all types, that can appeal to any taste. If a person can't find a video game with a story that appeals to them then they aren't looking very hard. And there's definitely no lack of innovation in the industry. Every month we see or hear about new and exciting games that are coming that challenge what we think a video game is or could be. And of course we can't forget the multitude of devices that games can be played on, each offering it's own unique way to play. Every day game designers are coming up with new and interesting ways to tell stories.
                            
Video games are often compared to other forms of entertainment media such as literature, film, and music. But what makes video games so special, is that they encompass all of these things. Video games are none of these things and all of them at the same time. Carefully blending art, music, film, and literature - among other things - video games are the natural evolution of human entertainment. Attention will always be garnered by those who speak out and make negative remarks about the state of the industry; but it's the people who are silent that we should be listening to, because they are the ones working on the next great experiences.
                           
The Nintendo Wii showed that video games could reach a massively larger audience than what was previously thought. With Wiis filling nursing homes across the land, I think it's safe to say that there isn't a demographic out there that video games can't appeal to. And once you're in, you become a part of one the most passionate groups of people you'll ever see. Gamers love their hobby, whether it be cosplayers, tournament players, or just players in general, they all share the common bond of video games. No matter the age, race, or sex, get a group of gamers together and they'll be laughing and smiling in no time.
                           
The worth of video games won't be found in comparisons to other industries or in the remarks of individuals. The worth of video games lies in the people that love them. Game developers, game media, and the gamers themselves all represent the worth of video games. No other industry can claim the same level of passion and the same close relationship between all levels of the industry that video games enjoy. And because of this, video games don't need to find their place or prove their worth. Video games are not movies or books or music. Video games are video games, and that's what makes them amazing.

How Much Do Graphics Really Matter?

The recent rumors of the Wii-U's supposed graphical ineptitude have lead me to a very interesting question: how much do graphics really matter anyway? I think I should start by pointing out that the hardware powering the Wii-U's graphics is said to be close to, but not quite on par with the Xbox 360 and the PS3. I think that's pretty damn good personally, especially when you factor in the cheap price tag it's almost certain to have. I'm still buying games for both of those systems that impress me graphically, and even early 360 and PS3 games still look very nice. So it's not as if the graphics are still going to look like Wii games.
                          
But, as is always the case in the gaming world, people are passionate about their games and their beliefs of what makes them great. So it came as no surprise that the rumors were followed by fan rage. Some even said that they wouldn't buy a Wii-U if the graphics weren't up to snuff. Personally I can't imagine a scenario where I skip out on a new Nintendo console and all the fantastic games that will only be available on that system. But are graphics still that important to people?
                          
At this point in each consoles life, many developers are more focused on art style rather than how many technical terms they can check off on the box. Sure, there will always be developers that push the envelope and make games that look closer and closer to real life, but they tend to be the minority. And do great graphics automatically equal great sales? Of course not. Visual fidelity is just one of many systems working together in a game to bring the experience to the player. Take a game like Battlefield 3 for example. Visually, Battlefield 3 stands head and shoulders above it's biggest rival, Call of Duty, but still wasn't able to outsell it. It sold very well, no doubt about it, but it still was out sold by a game that for all intents and purposes doesn't even look as good as it's last iteration, Modern Warfare 2.
                          
And what about games that go with a visual style that is more simplistic like Team Fortress 2. Team Fortress 2's visuals are beautiful to look at, and can be run at high settings on just about any hardware configuration. Another example would be a game like Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved on Xbox Live Arcade. This is the game that, it could be argued, single handedly solidified the digital distribution of games on consoles, and it barely has graphics at all. It doesn't have a story either. But what it does have - amazing gameplay - it has in spades. Even World of Warcraft, technically the biggest game in the world, has very simple visuals. And the list goes on and on.
                          
But we're here to talk about Nintendo games, and they have no shortage of beautiful games. Nintendo is notorious for taking their games in directions that almost always create panic in the fanbase, but almost always turn into amazing experiences. The biggest example of this would be The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker. Initially, Nintendo had shown early footage of a more realistic looking Zelda game that wooed fans with the promise of a realistic Link. But when the full unveiling of Wind Waker came, it had cel-shaded or "cartoony" graphics. The fan rage was monumental, but at the end of the day Nintendo won the fans over with an amazing zelda game that, because of the cartoony graphics, was able to portray more emotion and personality from the characters than ever before.
                          
The SNES was probably the last time that Nintendo had a system full of games with cutting edge graphics, but since then there's been a definite shift in focus toward art style and direction. Almost all of Nintendo's games have had simple graphics, but the art styles and art direction have always more than made up for any lack of technical capabilities.Nintendo has shown that there are many ways to make a game's visuals pleasing to look at. One could argue that while games running on cutting edge technology have "better graphics", games like Wind Waker and Team Fortress 2 have more beautiful visuals.
                          
And then there's the Dolphin Emulator. If nothing else, the Dolphin Emulator proves that Nintendo's games can keep up with the 360 and PS3's wow factor by simply running the games in HD resolutions. Wii, and even Gamecube games running in HD on the Dolphin look amazing. And HD is something the Wii-U is already confirmed to support. Take that and couple it with Nintendo's amazing ability to crank out simple graphics with amazing art style and direction, and we should see games that can hang with the best of the other systems.
                          
So while it does seem to be a rule that graphics sell consoles early on, it's the games that keep it selling later on. Great graphics alone can't make a bad game fun. But great gameplay can make an ugly game fun. At the end of the day it's all about the games. Games make systems. Without quality games, your big powerful console might as well be a paper weight. The Wii-U is pretty much guaranteed to have great games, and as long as it has that it should do just fine.

Is Gamestop Ruining Used Games for All of Us? Pt. 2

Here we go again.
With the recent rumors of PS4s and Xbox720s, the rumors of console locked games is rearing it's ugly head again. I wrote a blog not too long ago about this topic, and my belief that GameStop is the main culprit in the used game sales discussion. I personally think that if GameStop had more competition - specifically huge chains that tailor to gamers - we'd be in better shape. But that theory was based on my area, which sees GameStops on every corner and very few other gaming stores. But several people pointed out to me in the comments that their cities/towns have very successful alternatives to GameStop. That still doesn't address the "large chain" part of my theory, but we'll go with it.
                  
So the question boils down to this: is it GameStop's greed that is the problem? Or is it publisher/developer greed that is the problem?
Honestly, I think it's both.
Everytime one of these stories goes up there's a firestorm in the comments over used games. You have the folks defending GameStop's right to sell used games, and you have the folks defending the position that used games are no different than piracy. This almost always leads to comparisons between games and other industries: cars, books, movies, etc. Most of these are usually disregarded because many people do not think it makes sense to compare cars and games, and to an extent, this is true. There are pieces of the comparison that don't hold water, but the basis of the comparison still stands.
              
In my opinion, a much better comparison are movies. Movies have multi-million dollar budgets - like games - and are protected under intellectual property laws - also like games. The difference? Games tend to cost twice as much as movies. Now, one might argue that movies have the box office to recoup the money spent on making the movie, thus allowing them sell the DVDs and Blu-rays at a lower cost. But there are two problems with this argument: 1) this doesn't explain straight-to-DVD movies, and 2) games used to have the arcades, but that didn't really help the prices of games.
I've made the argument multiple times over the years that games cost too much. Many have argued that I'm wrong and that games don't cost enough. But I think the real problem is that 99% of all games cost the same amount. Why does Madden 'XX cost the same as Skyrim? Shouldn't games that release annually cost less than games that take 5 years to develop? At this point I've been paying $60 per game since 2005, so I'm not about to try and convince publishers to make games cheaper (even though I still think they should be), but I will make the argument that low budget games and annual release games should cost less than high budget games or games with longer development cycles.
                
On the other side of the equation is GameStop. I already pointed out in my last blog my love/hate relationship with GameStop. So here is my version of the anti-GameStop argument. GameStop doesn't make shit. They don't pay their people shit. They make quite literally billions by cramming used games down the throats of their customers, and making their employees constantly bug customers about pre-orders and trades by dangling pink slips over their heads.
Like I said in my last blog, we wouldn't even be having this conversation were it not for GameStop. GameStop is the sole reason publishers are taking steps to stop their customers from selling their games. What if publishers are telling the truth and money lost by every mom that goes into GameStop willing to buy a new game, but instead is fed a "used" copy for $5 less, is hurting them to the point that game companies are going out of business? If that's the case, then GameStop is creating it's own destruction. How does a game store sell games when there aren't any games to sell? If GameStop were only selling used games in the same way that the mom & pop shops do, or even the way Best Buy does, I don't think we'd be having this discussion right now. It's the fact that GameStop pushes their customers to buy "used" copies of games that just came out for $5 less that is the problem.
                                 
This new discussion that's being brought about by rumors of console locked games is the exact point I was making when I wrote down the title of this blog. If the rumors are true, and MicroSoft and Sony are planning to console lock games in the next generation of game systems, then GameStop will have ruined used games for all of us. Let's not kid ourselves either, even if they do lock games to specific consoles, they're still gonna sell. None of the things that gamers have made big stinks about have worked. DLC locked on the disc is still making money, nobody really cares about backward compatibility, day 1 DLC still exists.
Publishers and developers could persuade many gamers that tend to wait on certain game's prices to drop by selling certain new games at cheaper prices. As I pointed out, annually released games and low budget games could - and should - sell for less than full retail price. I also think that developers and publishers should sell used copies of their own games, therefore taking on GameStop head on. But in the end, if console makers can make consoles that lock games to it then none of this compromise even matters. My only hope is that maybe we see some cheaper games as a result, though I doubt it.
        
I'm not siding with either one. I think that game publishers charge too much for their games and I've seen too many instances of them screwing over the developers that actually make the games to have any sympathy for them. As I've said before I will defend anyone's, including GameStop's, right to sell used products. But the fact of the matter is that if MS and Sony go through with it and release machines that lock games to consoles, then GameStop will have ruined used games for all of us.

A Deeper Look at Halo 4 So Far - Update # 3.1

Update #3.1

A plethora of new Halo 4 images seem to have surfaced onto the web today. Many are from the recent GameInformer Halo 4 cover story, but some appear to be concept art while others are in-engine models. See for yourself:

Concept Art

In-Game Screens:

In-Engine Models:

Well that's it for now. I may come back and comment on some of the info we can gather from these pics, but until then, enjoy.

 

Update #3
If you haven't already seen 1UP's recent Halo 4 article (that your's truly participated in), go check it out here.

 

Ok, first things first: Halo's release date was announced this week, and as I suspected, it's in November (November 6th, to be exact), meaning Microsoft and 343i are taking Call of Duty head on. The good people at Rooster Teeth teamed up with 343i to make a Red vs Blue video announcing the date:

                    

There are a few new morsels we can take away from the video.

The 1st is that it's made using Halo 4. The map looks to be one of the two maps that have already been shown, "Warhouse". This is also the first time I've seen the shotgun, which appears to be exactly the same as Reach's shotgun. We also get to see the scope screen of the sniper rifle, which appears to be some what different than before. For starters the actual scope part isn't a complete rectangle anymore. Also the area of the screen surrounding the scoped area is now a shade of blue, rather than the typical blurred, colorless versions we're used to.

Because is the big annoucement there's a lot of other Halo news and media floating around as well. The funniest of these is the "Conan O'Brian's "Halo 4" Voiceover Remote video:

                    

If you skip ahead to the 8:53 mark, we get a few seconds of BR gameplay. The only thing to really take away from this gameplay segment is that it's the first time that I've actually heard the Battle Rifle fired. To be completely honest it sounded kind of weak, so here's to hoping that it doesn't like that in the final game.

GameInformer still has their week long Halo 4 news special going on, so there are some really good bits of info that you can gather from these. The first of these is "Transitions to Halo 4", and is Frankie talking about why he decided to leave Bungie to stay and work on Halo and how 343i is made up of die hard Halo fans. The next is "The Music" and talks about how Halo 4's music guru, Sotaro Tojima, went about selecting British musician and producer, Neil Davidge, to compose the music for Halo 4. There is an accompanying bonus video:

                   

Next is "Meet the Creative Director of Halo 4" and is an indepth interview withHalo 4's creative director, Josh Holmes. This one also has a bonus video:

                   

Then we have "New and Old Meet: A New Take On Competitive Multiplayer" which I had high hopes for, but unfortunately it's not anything we didn't already know. The only new piece of info I could gather was that Halo 4 would only support 2 player split screen in online matches. It'll still be 4 player split screen locally, but scaling back online matches to only two player split screen could get them some negative reactions from fans considering every Halo that's ever been online supported 4 player split screen online play. UPDATE: Just read that Frankie clarified saying that the 2-player online, 4-player locally omment was in reference to Spartan Ops. Regular online matchmaking will still be 4-player split screen online. You can see it for yourself here.

And lastly we have "Spartan Ops: The New Cooperative Experience". While there isn't really anything new in here, there is a better explanation of what it is. Most notable is that Spartan Ops missions will take place outside of the Infinity (the giant UNSC ship that Halo 4's multiplayer takes place on) as it treks across the galaxy. This was kind of a given, but at least it's confirmed now. They also say that Spartan Ops missions will combine to be as big, if not bigger, than Campaign.

There are also several things that can be taken away from the video that aren't directly tied to the subject matter. Watching the video you'll notice a tv screen behind lead Spartan Ops designer, Chris Haluke, has Halo 4 running with the player idle. The equipped weapon is the assault rifle and we can see the "AFK" animation at work as the Spartan turns the weapon from left to right. The map appears to be Warhouse and some kind of robotic arm can be seen moving around near the giant mech that rests in the middle of the map. We can also get a glimpse of an ordinance pod (the new distribution model for power weapons in Halo 4 multiplayer - think oridance drops from Halo Reach's Firefight mode) up on the platform that is holding a sniper rifle, as given away by the blue sniper rifle icon coming off of the top of the pod.

We can also get an idea of what Halo 4's menu system will look like from the monitors sitting behind both Chris Haluke and Josh Holmes. Nothing really special about them, but it does appear that 343i is keeping with the traditional "shades of blue" style UI of past Halo games.

And that's it for the GameInformer news so far, if they post anything esle then I'll repost it here.

The last info drop comes by way of the latest 343i podcast: 343 Sparkcast 012 - A Halo 4 Multiplayer-Focused Extravaganza. You can check it out here. Among the things they talk about is ordinance drops, which I talked about above. If you missed it, in Halo 4 the power weapons will no longer be in specific places on the map any longer, instead the will be shot from orbit into the map by way of ordinance drop pods. Basically the same way you got power weapons in Halo Reach's FireFight mode. And if you happen to be under one of these pods when it comes - after an extensive warning system - then it will kill you. Could be pretty funny.

Immediate respawning is elaborated on, although it is still what we thought: in certain modes you'll be able to respawn immediately after dying. This WILL NOT apply to objective based gametypes. But, players don't have to respawn immediately if they don't want to, they can go in and change their or customize their loadouts in-between deaths.

They talk a bit about how having similar weapons like the Battle Rifle and the DMR in the game and how they actually serve different purposes in spite of their similar class.

Forerunner Vision is explained a little better. I had a feeling that it would be similar to Halo 3: ODST and Halo: Reach's visor mode and that's what it sounds like it'll be. The range isn't too long on it and it puts off a sound that alerts players to the armor ability.

The new Assault Carbine is touched on briefly, even if they don't really tell you what it is. It sounds like it'll be what I thought which is a Halo equivalent to the real world M4A1.

And they finish it off by talking about Spartan Ops and the lack of FireFight. They feel that it was right to remove FireFight because Spartan Ops is a deeper, meatier, Halo co-op experience. Apparently Spartan Ops will encourage teamwork unlike FireFight's tendency to turn into a player free-for-all. Also, each week's new Spartan Ops missions will come with full CGI movies to flesh them out.

Well that about wraps it up, I'll keep posting info as it comes out.

Update #2

Today 343 released their Halo Bulletin for 3.07.12. In it, Frankie harkened back to the days of the "Weekly Bungie Update", in which he would talk about the progress of the current game and answer questions from fans. Today, he answered quite a few questions from fans, and though the answers were expectedly vague, there were some nice morsels hiding in there. You can read the whole thing for yourself here.

One of the things he addresses is the attempt by some to compare whatever the new gameplay functions in Halo 4 are, to Call of Duty's "perks". I personally have an idea of what direction they are going with Halo 4 in terms of new gameplay, which is nothing like CoD's perk system, so it'll be interesting to see how on or off the mark I am as we learn more. But suffice it to say, whatever it is, it is not a clone of CoD's perks.

Next he touches on the new armor customization systems for multiplayer and how that will affect play. It's really hard to discern what it will entail with his vague statements, but you do get that not all armor customization will be just cosmetic. It sounds for a brief moment that there may be an evolution of the loadouts seen in Reach, but even then it's hard to say. He does say that what they're doing will not affect balance or give certain players an upper hand.

Another fan question asks if either equipment or armor abilities would see a return. Frankie answers by talking about how Halo: CE and Halo 2 had equipment at different points of the map, while Halo 3 featured equipment, which was the same idea, but in greater variety. Halo: Reach featured armor abilities which were picked in loadouts before the match begins and in respawning. He went on to say that Halo 4 would feature a natural evolution of these systems while taking into account the successes (Halo:CE - 3) and failures (Reach - though the jetpack has it's moments) of previous games.

Other points of interest include:

No multiplayer beta.

Master Chief and multiplayer Spartan IV's will play virtually the same.

There will be new characters introduced, though I think that goes without saying.

They're planning some interesting things in terms of marketing, though anyone who remembers the whole "I love Bees" ARG from Halo 2 understands that Halo has a history in this regard. There will also be someone from 343 attending all the major events to represent Halo 4 between now and when the game ships.

Playlists for "traditional Halo fans" was mentioned, which made me think of Classic Slayer in Halo: Reach, which is basically the game the way it was played in Halo 1 - 3.

As I speculated in my previous update to this blog, health and health packs are gone.

It sounds like there will be more guns than in previous games. Frankie said definitively that "it is not the same number of guns (as in Reach)". Seeing as how they've already shown the Battle Rifle AND said that there will be single shot weapons like the DMR, along with lots of new guns, I highly doubt that there will be less weapons than Reach.

The Covenant will return. Though they're role in the game will be, "in a completely (graphically, politically and sonically) overhauled form".

The Battle Rifle (and presumably other weapons) will be hitscan (Halo 2, Reach) as opposed to spread (Halo 3). This information is more for the very competitive multiplayer fans as it pertains to how fast the bullets hit the target once the trigger is pulled - hitscan=instantaneous/spread=not instantaneous.

Reach's assassinations will return, though in an unspecified, altered way.

There will be a way to still play Grifball, whether that will be with a gravity hammer or some new weapon wasn't said.

We can probably expect some remakes of fan favorite maps.

it sounds like Halo 4 will be able to match Reach mode for mode.

Forge will be awesome.

The machinima community has not been forgotten.

There will not be an outright colorblind option, though colorblindness was taken into effect in art design.

And lastly, he said that their current stage of development is officially "crunch". Frankie described crunch as, "We’re finishing levels. Improving perf. Finishing gameplay. Finishing UI. The Campaign is playable from beginning to end. Cinematics are being fully realized. Music is composed, final orchestra sessions are booked. Some levels are graphically polished and beautiful, others waiting their turn in the schedule. Testing and polishing of systems continues. Crunchy."

Honestly I'm surprised that they're that far along in development, but I'm glad as well considering that gives the team that much more time to polish the game and find and squash bugs. I'm hoping that we'll start seeing weekly updates on Halo 4's progress like in the days of old.

I'll continue to update this blog as I find out more about the game.

Update

Something else that I forgot to point out that I noticed in the Halo 4 Making of video was the removal of health. For those that don't know, the original Halo: Combat Evolved saw your shield meter accompanied by a health meter. The player would have to pick up health packs in order to restore lost health. This was removed in Halo 2 and Halo 3, but returned in Halo 3: ODST and Halo: Reach. Thankfully, 343 has seen that Bungie made the right choice by removing health in Halo 2 and 3 and it appears from the video that Halo 4 will also not have a health meter or health packs.

 [Original Blog]

So today 343 industries finally released the first piece of actual in-game footage of Halo 4.

I've watched it like 20 times already.

Just from the short, 4 minute video - in which only a very small part was in-game, from the HUD gameplay - I can already see that 343 "get's it". Halo 4 looks to be what it's being billed as: a direct sequel to Halo 3. And that's what I want. Halo is my favorite gaming franchise. Ever. I love the Halo universe and have consumed just about every single piece of content available.

In a lot of ways, the novels are just as important to the Halo universe as the games, if not more. The novels really have done a great job of putting you knee deep in the universe and giving you a more human look at characters like the Master Chief, something the games haven't really done. So for the folks that haven't read the novels, the Master Chief probably comes across as pretty bland. So I was very excited to hear that 343 is taking all the depth we normally only get from the novels and planting it squarely into the game. They specifically mentioned a desire to flesh out John (Master Chief) more, which is very exciting to a long time fan like myself.

Anyone who finished Halo 3 on Legendary will remember the cinematic after the credits, in which we see John and Cortana drifting into the orbit of what appears to be a planet. But as the surface is illuminated we realize that it's not a planet, at least not a natural one as the surface appears to be metal and machine-like. Judging from the reveal trailer for Halo 4 this is exactly where Halo 4 picks up. I think it'll be safe to say that there will be new enemies this time around. Maybe even some Forerunner involvement. So as far as story, and this is hard to say coming from a Bungie faithful, I think that Halo 4 will be the strongest Halo story yet.

Graphically the game looks amazing. And the weird part is that it looks like Halo. The art style, the colors, the direction, it all looks like Bungie themselves did it. In the video we see a little snippet of the kind of facial detail we can expect, and it was very impressive. Something they talk about in the video is really putting an emphasis on the superhuman abilities of the Spartans through gameplay. This really intrigued me because I've always read about the amazing things the Spartans are capable of in the novels, but never really got to do any of it in the games.

One of the things that ended up really disappointing me in Reach were the armor abilities. When Reach was first announced I was really hoping it would be based on the novel, "The Fall of Reach", and put you in the shoes of the Chief along with his squad of Spartans called Blue team. These were all Spartan II's and each had an ability that made them unique. These characters would not have needed armor abilities like the Spartan III's, who had not been genetically enhanced, nor did they have the same Mjolner armor that the Spartan II's had.

To me, Reach felt like Bungie was feeling the pressure from CoD, and rather than take the game in the direction they could have by featuring characters that were natural superhumans and using that in the gameplay, they decided to add their version of perks. Hell, even the campaign-space multiplayer maps, the reticule bloom, among other things, were taken straight from CoD. But everything we've seen of Halo 4 so far shows a game that is getting back in touch with itself.

I saw no armor abilities, no reticule bloom, they go out of their way to say that all of the multiplayer maps are unique spaces built from the ground up for multiplayer. Oh, and the Battle Rifle is back. For those who don't know, the BR is leagues better than the DMR (though, according to Frank O'Connor, there will still be single shot weapons). Oh and they're actually making a backstory for multiplayer, which I thought was interesting. The ability to sprint also seems to be a normal gameplay mechanic now as well, something that is long overdue in my opinion.

1UP has a piece up with some of the guys talking about the Halo 4 video and how it looks like CoD to them. I thought this was very strange, and frankly, completely unsubstantiated. Reach, with all the things I mentioned previously, was the closest any Halo game has ever come to copying CoD. But Halo 4 appears to be shedding all of those things in favor of a new direction. One of the things they talk about is how Halo 4 appears to have a slightly faster movement speed than Reach, which would make sense considering Bungie admitted to slowing down movement speed in Reach and lowering jump height.

Before this video, nobody really knew what to expect from 343's first entry into the Halo series. But after what I've seen today, this is one diehard Halo fan that is not only happy with what he's seen, but believes that this could be the best Halo yet. 343 is made up of Halo fans and it shows, because so far they are doing what this fan wants.