Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why base a game on the losing team?
  • Subject: Why base a game on the losing team?
Subject: Why base a game on the losing team?

Who cares if we get to play alongside other Spartans and have epic battles? Most of the Spartans on Reach dies and we know the game ends with humans losing and PoA running away.

Unless there's new fiction to be made, my skepticism isn't going away. We lose our BRs and SMGs to Prototypes, and the Spartan Laser is probably going to be nerfed to fit the time-era.

Again, who wants to play on the losing side? We can argue that the journey is more important than the destination, but there's a reason why games based on the Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian-Gulf Conflict (AKA Gulf War) don't exist.

Just my 2c. Don't flame me too hard.

  • 09.25.2009 1:56 AM PDT

I AM AN MLG PRO

To show the vulnerable side of the spartans and humanity, and put you in the shoes of the few that break through and survive.

ODST is a story of a small success in an overall failure of humanity.

PS- Did you say that the Gulf War was a loss? Operation Desert Storm ring a bell? The single greatest show of military technology and force?

  • 09.25.2009 2:04 AM PDT

*cough* I'm not trying to be historically -blam!-. I do remember Op. Desert Storm, but the Gulf War is pretty sensitive to people because bad stuff happened there.

I'm ok with different perspectives at times, but in a prequel? Remember the last time with Halo 2 when Bungie offered the Arbiter as a parallel protagonist for the Covenant? Fans raged out all over B.net, I remember because I was there.

You brought up ODST, but in Reach, there was no victory: humanity lost big time there and lost their 2nd most resourceful planet. The only small victory was getting away with John (and other MIA Spartans), and trying to blow that up into something epic is going to take some creative genius and lots of retconning to get done.

I'm open to discussion though, I don't mean to put myself off as some pessimist.

  • 09.25.2009 2:12 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Mythic Member
  • gamertag: P3P5I
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Achronos
It isn't our shiznit anymore.

OP, I would say you have some hypocrisy in your statement. Why do you watch movies (action, romance, drama)? Most if not all end with the hero defeating the bad guy and getting the girl, so why watch them if you know what's going to happen? Don't think of it like you're going into a losing fight, think of it like you're getting perspective on one of the greatest battles in UNSC history.

  • 09.25.2009 3:15 AM PDT

to show the bad guy dos not alwas lose

  • 09.25.2009 3:37 AM PDT

Machinima.com Director
Dispatch Films

Halo is about humanity losing a war for 30 years, where the -blam!- have you been?

Honestly your argument is flawed on so many levels.

  • 09.25.2009 3:48 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I want to play on the losing team. Why would this be a problem just because you know they lose? The idea is to get a better idea of what happened on reach. Is see you played ODST, why would you want to buy ODST? There's no BR there's no dual weild and you already know what happened to the city right. Or did I just poke a hole in your logic?

  • 09.25.2009 4:16 AM PDT

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME GROUP INVITATIONS

The Halo REACH Script (post thoughts in thread)

Writing Lead of Whisper Studios. Check out Heron!

Look... I'm on bungiepedia!

We actually don't know if most of the Spartans die. We have 4 confirmed KIAs upon hitting the ground from the fall (Malcolm and 3 unnamed), and Joshua from the nuke. The others stories are all open to interpretation and Bungie can take them any way they want. Maybe they all meet up and get locked in some Forerunner facility, or they stow away aboard a Covenant ship and get taken behind enemy lines, or brought to some distant Forerunner construct where they enter the planet from the end of Halo 3...

Also, we have movies about the losing team all the time. One of the best examples is 300.

[Edited on 09.25.2009 4:44 AM PDT]

  • 09.25.2009 4:43 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

because it will be epic

  • 09.25.2009 5:13 AM PDT

Arby n The Chief - THER CANZ BE NLY 1

If your on the losing side, all I can think of is how intensive the battles will be. The thought of no hope will always be on your mind, unlike ODST were you have the thought is it going to be a good or bad ending.

  • 09.25.2009 5:28 AM PDT

No Body Listens to Eingoluq

Posted by: Fantasy Star
Who cares if we get to play alongside other Spartans and have epic battles? Most of the Spartans on Reach dies and we know the game ends with humans losing and PoA running away.

Unless there's new fiction to be made, my skepticism isn't going away. We lose our BRs and SMGs to Prototypes, and the Spartan Laser is probably going to be nerfed to fit the time-era.

Again, who wants to play on the losing side? We can argue that the journey is more important than the destination, but there's a reason why games based on the Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian-Gulf Conflict (AKA Gulf War) don't exist.

Just my 2c. Don't flame me too hard.


wasn't reach destroyed weeks or months before halo 3? i dont know but i think so. so what do you mean time era? the same weapons may be there. maybe not the laser.

  • 09.25.2009 5:38 AM PDT

One nation, under God I 2012 NBA Champions Miami Heat
1/20/2017 Four more years of hell
___.............._______/```````````````:::--.
|.==,-.~;. ____:._______ __’__’__’_ _ _\===
|................--:---:--:--‘---:,, ,,, ,,, ,,,:---: /=
`-.,.__._._,,...---:::"

I thought the same thing for Halo Wars.

  • 09.25.2009 5:40 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

So you would pass down a game that's looking like it's going to have all-out, wide-open warfare just because the "team" you're playing on is going to lose?

I mean, how can you complain that we're going to lose the weapons in Halo 3? Look at the picture for Reach, and the variety of weapons. You have no idea what they'll be like, in fact, you might prefer them over Halo 3's weapons.

I mean, complaining about the br not being in Reach is just odd when you have no idea what mechanics the game is going to revolve around, and what kind of weapons we're going to see in them, not to mention the overall feel of the game.

  • 09.25.2009 5:52 AM PDT

Dont you know?
Spartans never die!!!

I can somewhat agree with you. But, The fall of Reach is still one of the best books and I can't wait for the game.

  • 09.25.2009 5:59 AM PDT

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME GROUP INVITATIONS

The Halo REACH Script (post thoughts in thread)

Writing Lead of Whisper Studios. Check out Heron!

Look... I'm on bungiepedia!

Wait a second... why would there be no BR, SMG, or Laser in Halo: REACH?

My guess for your "logic" is that they weren't in Halo 1. You know what that was? Because the only human ship supplying you in Halo was the PoA, which had severely limited supplies (the Spartans' Weapons Lockers, and who knows how many other storage locks, were destroyed in the Battle of Reach).

  • 09.25.2009 6:01 AM PDT

crosses fingers for lock on rockets again!!

  • 09.25.2009 7:14 AM PDT