Halo: Combat Evolved remake coming this holiday

@MEMgrizzlies7 they need to move on

@MEMgrizzlies7 Seconded. Can't wait. Hopefully it's offered via XBLA or Games on Demand.

@denden7
All the "milking" detractors need to move on.

@denden7 how is this any different from rereleasing HD versions of Prince of Persia or God of War 1 and 2?

@MEMgrizzlies7,

F*CK BUNGIE & 343 FOR DENYING THIS OUT THEIR SMELLY, GAME-INDUCED SWEATY ASSES.

WHY LIE? WHY MAKE A "30-SECOND INTRO TO HALO 1" IN HALO REACH AND DENY THAT THERE IS ' NO HALO 1 REMAKE' ?

STUPID FREAKING MORONS.

NEXT, YOU ARE GONNA DENY YOUR "SUPER SECRET HALO 2 REMAKE" RIGHT?

@EechuTah

Caps Lock is fun.

@EechuTah Wow....

You might want to cut back on the caffeine bud.

@EechuTah
Wow did someone ever get up on the wrong side of the bed today.

@MEMgrizzlies7 I'm never getting inheritor now.

@Integral

There is no difference. I don't see why this remake would make anyone upset. This is a GOOD thing. Hopefully they don't give it a full price but if they are redoing all the assets and adding new online features it's probably worth full price.

I would love a similar remake of the original Killzone on PS3.

@Integral
HALO: Combat Evolved is backwards compatible whereas God of War and other PlayStation 2 titles are not. Additionally, the God of War Collection was a budget-priced title featuring two games and was used as a marketing tool to reinvigorate fan interest 6 months before the release of God of War III.

With HALO, Microsoft is dumping millions of dollars into updating art assets and controls to recreate a game that is still relevant and wonderful a decade on (and which revolutionized the industry in a number of ways). You can be assured this will be a $60 retail product, not a $40 budget title that includes 2 full games.

I'm not opposed to remakes such as these, but there is a fundamental difference between simply uprezzing a game and releasing it cheaply to an audience who can't play the original and allocating resources to remake a game rather than create a new one. Granted, equipment, sprinting and online play were all missing in the original game, but I'm not sure that's enough to excite consumers. (Not to mention that it appears as if MS is taking a page from ActiVision and trying to annualize the property.)

@MEMgrizzlies7

HELL YES is Right

i hope it comes with an HD demo of Fuzion Frenzy ;)

@Architecture Have you tried playing Halo CE on a HD TV? The night levels are just to dark to actually see anything.

So long as this is not released at full price I can see this being a good thing. I always said they should rerelease the older games but I would of preferred if they had been remade using the newer Halo engine and preferably the newer enemy AI models.

@Rizraz

Oh man, the number of times I played that demo

@MEMgrizzlies7

Sweet. Halo 1 was the best in the series, now it will be the best looking too.

@MEMgrizzlies7


Hopefully I don't sound like a twat saying this, but the first Halo is the only one I really enjoyed. This is some pretty faptastic news.

@carbonize

It might be your TV. I just played through Halo: CE back in November and it didn't look too bad. Animation is poor and textures are very low-res, but I had no problems playing through. Granted I have an LED-backlit TV.

@ItsameMatt03

Mine was an LCD and I had no problems...
The original runs at 720p with AA, which is nice, too.

But this remake, I really hope it looks more like Halo 3 than Halo Reach. I mean, yeah, Reach had more LOD, but I was actually expecting the "brown and bloom" art style to go away after the first couple of levels, like a fog clearing or something. I was wrong. In comparison to the bright, vivid world of Halo 3, it was just drab...

@Johnnynumber5 is powered by cell

That would be awesome, and fit right in with kz2 and kz3 (since most people missed kz1)

@Architecture So the reason MS shouldnt remake a game optimizing it for this gen and updating the controlls and everything else is because they were actually made the orignal available to people on the 360? I think the first PS3s had the ability to play most ps2 games if im not mistaken but sony dropped it for whatever reason. This is good news for me and a lot of other people who never fully got into this game when it was first released. I owned a ps2 and a playstation before I got my 360 so i never played Halo:CE when it first came out. I tried picking it up when i got my 360 but to me it was almost unplayable the controls and the graphics were horrible and took away from the experience so i support this update i just hope it wont be full price but it probably will be. If people dont like this they wont buy it and microsoft probably wont keep doing it but as of right now im looking forward to this to maybe reinterest me in halo all together well see.

@MEMgrizzlies7
Hell yes is an understatement. This will be pretty damn sweet. Only way it could be sweeter is if they did a "Six survived" retcon and had him/her as the co-op character lol

@EechuTah Whoa you mad bro'?

@Rizraz
hell yeah, my brothers and i would play 3 people on that corkscrew for hours at a time.

@Architecture Is new armor going to be available? Or has that not been said yet?

@Integral

they're using the halo: reach graphics engine and re-doing all the models and all the art. so instead of just porting and upscaling it is a full remake.

@Captain Underpants and the Bring

I'd probably buy this, if it were to come out for PC. I've been looking for a good, old-school style sci-fi shooter. Getting tired of all the military shooters here lately. We get it, people want to be Mr. America Fark Yeah but don't have the testies to join the army... Geez...

@pally321

Yes to your yes!

Some commenters slamming a Halo CE remake were, let's face it, too young to remember how groundbreaking the game was.

And, with the recent Bungie missteps with Reach--deal with it, the game is a joke and not popular, by Halo standards--going "back to basics" with the gameplay will entice players who left over all the crappy ideas that Bungie threw into the latest game, on their way out the door.

Given that 343 Industries is made up of veteran Bungie alums, who made Halo CE and understand what Halo is, and isn't, the game should move Halo forward appropriately, while keeping what made Halo awesome--namely, the simplicity. If you think this is a cash-cow maneuver, you are plain stupid.

Downvote ... it's OK. Reach is a total disappointment. If you're one of the 600,000 players still playing, go ahead.

It is still a disappointment, sadly, even after a second downvoting. If anyone wants to reply ... but there is nothing to say, is there?

Bring on CE remake!

@i77ogical
Reach disappointed you, perhaps, but let's face it, unless they simply made the same game again, you'd have been disappointed. You would have been disappointed with anything less than an expansion pack to Halo 3, because it meant the game would change and not be very much like the games you put so much time into.

I, on the other hand, absolutely loved Reach; the new guns finally had the kick and sound design they deserved, the armor abilities forced people to work as a team, the single player was brilliantly done and the ending was one of the most BRING IT moments ever in a video game.

So let's not mince words: there is nothing to say not because no one disagrees with you, or because there's no counter to your argument. There's plenty. There's nothing to say because you wouldn't listen; you would have been disappointed no matter what Bungie did.

@i77ogical

you're the kid who was whining about Reach and armor lock the other day, aren't you? i though i told you to keep your bitching on the Bungie forums.

@i77ogical

"Medal Of Honor, which we know is a hit-miss game, gets $12.75. So, Reach is only worth $1.25 more than Medal of Honor? Guess I'm stuck with it. "

you must live a sad, sad life if you care that much about how much a used game sells for.

@i77ogical

Well, I don't know where you get your gaming news, but Reach was one of the highest rated and best selling games of 2010.

Also, it was awesome. The armor abilities took some getting used to, but they added a new layer of challenge to online play. Yes, some people cheaply use armor lock and yes, you can get killed without getting a single shot off if someone is using the jetpack the right way, but complaining about it just makes you look like a sore loser. Most people were forced to change their usual strategy, which should be a good thing.

The story was great too, and I think they way they tied it into the first Halo game was excellent. In fact, most of the people I've talked to have said that the campaign's story was one of the best of the series.

But of course, not to a fan like you. You would have been disappointed with Reach no matter what Bungie did with it, probably because you already have your favorite of the series picked out and you think that nothing can top that. If were you, I'd be happy that Bungie didn't completely sell out with their final Halo game, instead taking a chance on something relatively unknown and risky - you don't see that happen that much in game series these days.

Look, I understand I hurt the feelings of 5-10 posters here, because I said, what, that Reach was a disappointment?

It is. The facts might hurt, but they are facts.

By every stat and mark you can use for a video game, Reach was less successful than Halo 3. You can go by Metacritic score, by active players, by sales, by resale value. You can go by every factual point you can find.

By factual stats, Reach is a disappointment. How is that even debatable?

If you are one of the exceptions, and you loved Reach--then good for you. Am I coming into your house and throwing Reach in the trash? No.

My post was originally about--good that Halo is being brought back to basics, because Reach did not measure up to the Halo standard. You can't argue with that, because there is no fact that supports your outrage.

@i77ogical

your opinions are in no way fact, sir. until you realize that, your comments deserve every downvote they receive.

it's not that you're right, it's just that most people don't want to waste time replying to your dimwitted ass. thankfully, this reply only took me 2 minutes.

@Liquidfingers

"If you are one of the exceptions, and you loved Reach--then good for you."

Wait, what? Reach was a resounding critical success. Okay, so you make a valid point when you say that Halo 3 is better rated on Metacritic than Reach is. However, this doesn't mean that Reach was a disappointment by any means, considering that Halo 3 has a 94 and Reach has a 91.

Last time I checked, both scores indicate that a game received "Universal Acclaim" according to Metacritic.

I'm not sticking up for the game simply because I love it, I'm just stating facts. You do like facts, right?

Okay, you want to say that Reach didn't stand up to the Halo standard? The gameplay was basically the same as the games that came before it, with the exception of armor abilities, a couple of extra weapons and the fact that the story focuses around a team of Spartans instead of just one.

Soooo...is this about the lack Master Chief? Because that's really the only glaring difference between Reach and Halo 3's single player campaign.

I mean, you keep saying that we don't have any facts that Reach wasn't a disappointment, when indeed it was one of the best rated and best selling games of 2010. If those are facts that support the success of Reach, what are they?

Oh, wait. Sorry, I forgot that you were talking out of your ass simply because you wanted a re-hash of Halo 3 and since you didn't get it, Reach is undeniably flawed in your eyes.

I don't care if I am downvoted. It's not the punishment that you think it is. In fact, it shows me that having the stones on this site to have an opinion is feared. And it only takes a few dedicated commenters to downvote the same person, over and over, so who cares?

The fact is (yes, a fact) that Reach sold a 1/3 fewer copies than Halo 3 to begin with, so yes, it was still a success by video game standards ... but, many players (including myself) bought the game based on the reputation of Bungie, and Halo CE, Halo 2, Halo 3 and ODST. Bungie betrayed a lot of fans, with their terrible game decisions. And so, an unprecedented number of fans dropped the game, based on what a Halo game should be doing right now--and that's where Reach didn't succeed.

How do we know that an unprecedented number of fans dropped Reach? We can look at the selling price for Reach, which is already down to $39.99 many places. We can look at the resale value, which is much lower than Halo 3 was, after five months. We can look at the dwindling player count in matchmaking, which is much lower than Halo 3 was, at this time. We can look at matchmaking times, which are long in more than a few playlists. We can look at what many Halo fans are saying about the game. We can look at our friends' lists, which have zero Reach players.

Reach is a niche game, the first Halo game to be called niche.

Very few Halo players hate reach because it wasn't Halo 3. They hate it because it wasn't Halo. There's a big difference. Halo 3 was about being a good shot, and being smart. Reach is about evading death, and being cheap. If you like the game, again, that is good for you. I wish I did. But the numbers of players who sold Reach, and left the game, are too big to ignore. Your saying, "you're wrong" to everything I say is hilarious.

The downvoting system on this site promotes tryhards who want to be liked, over speaking your mind. Kotaku's system, which allows a commenter to promote a comment he/she likes, is way less juvenile.

Because I know there are many Joystiq readers who sold Reach, or gave it up. The numbers are too big for there not to be. But, because they want to be liked, or seen as "not downvoted" they don't say anything.

When some of you realize that hearing a different opinion from you takes nothing away from you, you will be stepping into a much larger world than you currently inhabit. That goes for the five or so commenters downvoting me. And sure, prove me right and do it again. It's your thing.

@i77ogical

do you realize that you sound like a massive, fat dork? just wondering...give it up, man. obviously you didn't like halo reach. who gives a flying shitball? there are still tons of people who do. personally, i liked it more than halo 3.

you like to intertwine "facts" and opinions into a single, long-winded ramble, and it really does you no good. you claim that more people sold off halo reach than halo 3...OK, that may be a fact (where are you getting your numbers from?) but who cares? that could be due to a lot of things, like the shitty economy for one. you also "state" that there is no one playing reach on your friends list, while there are plenty of people playing it on mine. simply because you and your friends like to share braincells doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

i can't remember your entire rant right now because i'm sick, which is why i have spare time to reply to your crap in the first place, but one thing that did stick out was that you also believe that halo 3 is a game based on skill, whereas reach is not. i played a great deal of halo 3, and i've played a good deal of reach, and i can honestly not see what you're talking about. you act like they stripped away what was halo from reach and turned it into another call of duty when they did not. and that's a fact, it still says halo on the box and is made by bungie. any innovations they could ever make to the franchise will always be better than whatever you conjure up in your nerdgasms. and why is this? because they created the god damn franchise. that's also a fact, and if you don't like it, well, shit i don't know, find a new game? or maybe just keep playing halo 3. whatever you do, please just shut up and get over it.

i'm done...

@Liquidfingers

Why you turn a disagreement about a game into a personal attack is beyond me. Can you disagree with someone without melting down? It doesn't appear that you can.

I'm sure that if you can't understand why someone would not like (insert artistic product here), you will find out, someday. When you do, you will say, "hey, this thing I thought was going to be great, it really kind of sucked. Bummer. I'm out XX dollars. And hey, I'm not alone in thinking this, because XX number of people are saying the same thing. Huh."

You might even post your thought on a forum, or a blog. Here's hoping that you don't get the crazy stupid responses that you have left here.

Oh, I forgot. You're right about everything, totally in-step with what the best minds of your generation think, all the time. You'd never be disagreed with. I guess you'll never know what it's like, then ....

@i77ogical

Your using personal attacks too.

@i77ogical ill upvote you just because all halos suck

@i77ogical
you say "Bungie betrayed a lot of fans, with their terrible game decisions". what terrible decisons? i really would like to know because i can't think of a single "terrible decison".
You also mentioned that Reach was a "niche" game. seriously now, you think 3.3m sales in a month (in the US only btw) is niche? it made $200m on day 1! If you think thats niche then what the hell do you call games like enslaved that don't sell well?

You guys win. It's basically insane that a person can post something that doesn't endanger anyone's life, doesn't call anyone names, and yet a person can end up being subject to a gang-attack by angry kids, over what ... a point. That's all this has been about.

If you post your opinion, then the attack is, "That's just your opinion." When you post facts, then the attack is, "you're a massive, fat dork." Pretty obvious, the goal is not to listen to a comment, but to get amped up, and attack, and basically bully publicly. It's not even about gaming. It's about the rush you get from attacking someone. Well, you did it.

This was the side-comment I made, that brought on the bullying:

"And, with the recent Bungie missteps with Reach--deal with it, the game is a joke and not popular, by Halo standards--going 'back to basics' with the gameplay will entice players who left over all the crappy ideas that Bungie threw into the latest game, on their way out the door."

This point of view is shared by A LOT of people. The fact that it's news to you is hard to believe. You've heard this before, and if not, you can't know much about the Halo community. My mistake was posting this aside, and that's all it was--an aside about Halo CE remake--on this site.

If you think Halo Reach is so great, that it's worth trying to destroy a total stranger who mentions otherwise, then fine. I've never told you to agree with me. But let's be honest here. This ugly exchange has about bullying me, not listening to someone's opinion.

@i77ogical

you're just not getting it. sorry for attacking you, ok? it's not like you greatly upset me by your comments or anything, it's just that i'm a prick and i enjoy getting a rise out of people over the internet. is that really such a bad thing? i'm actually a pretty decent guy, and i enjoy discussing/arguing over certain topics with certain people. i'm very often disagreed with, and that's completely fine by me. i cherish the fact that we are each entitled to our own opinions and the ability to express those opinions.

now, what bothers me about your comments is that you just don't seem to get it. you're passing off your opinions as if they are FACT, and that is what bothers me. i hate to pull the fox news card, but that's totally what hitler did, the only difference is that he got a shitload of people to believe in what he was saying.

that's the only thing that really bothers me about your statements, besides the fact that i completely disagree with what you're saying in the first place. so what if there are a lot of people that agree with you? i guarantee you there are more people who still think that halo reach was/is a great game and that bungie didn't make any huge design mistakes multiplayer or otherwise.

maybe i did attack you unnecessarily (yet you attacked my entire generation, even though you don't have any idea what generation that is)...get over it. it's the internet. if you get offended by anything said over the internet than maybe you should reconsider posting on public forums altogether.

@Liquidfingers

I have basically stopped posting on this site. You're right. If I'm not ready to be attacked by a half-dozen people over a comment, I shouldn't post.

One thing. You confuse facts with opinion, and opinion with facts. That things like Halo Reach's resale value, reduced retail price, matchmaking numbers, and stuff like that, including regular forum revolts on bnet, do not represent any real evidence to you that Reach is a problematic game, is interesting. It doesn't mean you should personally like the game any less, but you have your fingers in your ears if you think the game is loved like previous Halo games were. And that's all this has been about, you and your friends stubbornly refusing to admit that the game has major problems, and is greatly disliked by a surprising number of fans.

We can't avoid personal bias in our comments. Your bias is larger than mine, since you have gotten so angry and negative in your responses. Who is the dictator here? (I'm sure they all think they're pretty good guys, too.)

@jdwhiskeyboy

If Apple's iPod were to go from #1 in sales to #3, and sell millions fewer in the next version, that would be a huge failure for Apple. For you to go, "yeah, but it still sells more than the Zune ..." doesn't change the fact.

Halo 3 sold over 8 million copies. Halo Reach, 3 million. For Bungie & MS, that's a huge failure. Why did it sell fewer copies is because newsflash: it's not as good of a game. More players quit it every month. Check the stats.

@looksideways

Step 1: Take existing LAN
Step 2: Convert to XBL
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit

Combat Evolved is already set up for massive multiplayer combat, it just never supported Live as it was released before Live.