Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: br in halo: reach.
  • Subject: br in halo: reach.
Subject: br in halo: reach.

i hate the br but what hate worse is people who say the br cant be in halo: reach just because it wasnt made until the second game in the series. so what? the game designers added it to the game to fill in the role of mid range weapon. does that mean the br is doomed to only exist in the halo universe since master came to cairo station? you dont have to have some books written by mediocre authors to absorb stuff into the fiction.

besides if the br cant be in reach then neither can the mauler cause it wasnt around until halo 3 but you dont see anyone complaining about the mauler. neither do people argue about the existance of the smg being on reach because it didnt exist on until halo 2. why do only people talk about the br in reach?

  • 09.29.2009 12:05 PM PDT

War, War never changes.

Got my Recon from the Vidmaster achievments, like most.
Reach IS awesome, don't deny it

Because apart from the AR the BR is a main weapon to Halo gameplay. So people naturally give that more attention. The other weapons you mentioned though havent been given a back story, so they can be included.

  • 09.29.2009 12:07 PM PDT

Disregard Females, acquire currency.

actually good sir teh br came into the halo universe in contact harvest (before reach!!!! and before halo 1 and all the others)

  • 09.29.2009 12:09 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"

Things like weapons aren't really subject to cannon or storylines. I don't want the BR in Reach because it makes for weak, monotonous gameplay that is only entertainly to people that like to camp.

ODST proved you don't need a BR to have a reliable percision weapon, just like in CE. It doesn't need to be a pistol, but it certainly shouldn't be a do all weapon like the BR is in Halo 2 and 3.

  • 09.29.2009 12:10 PM PDT

i know that. i have the book. im just complaining about the people think it cant exist before halo 2, as if the gun was made in factories and shipped the very day master chief was on cairo staion. i dont think we need books either to proove that a weapon exist in the canon before halo 2

  • 09.29.2009 12:17 PM PDT

Well, to be completely honest, the books were written to make a cannonical backstory. So if you even remotely like any part of the Halo Story-line, then you cannot just conviently forget the parts that you dislike. The Battle Rifle (Who's apperance in Contact Harvest gets me angry due to it still being in design during CE), makes it's first, true apperance during Halo: First Strike/Halo 2, which, are both as cannonical as the other in the story.

It's not like the games have more value than the books, in term of story. So before we start trashing the books, let us keep that in mind.

As for the Battle-Rifle appearing in Halo: Reach, I believe that it should be possible, and available (as far as story goes). For Gameplay? I'm not exactly sure. In Halo 3, I've learned to master the Battle Rifle, and use it with extreme efficency. However, when playing Generals and Brigadiers, it's not even fair. So, if you want a fair, low learning curve game for average players, remove the BR, trash it, get rid of it.

But, if you're looking to keep within the story, and keep your hardcore players content, keep it. Let us run rampant with the four-shots, or the one frag head-shot. That's my opinion on the matter. :)

  • 09.29.2009 12:23 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Bat, it can't. There wasn't enough manufacture for circulation in the UNSC for it to be at Reach. The only people who even used the weapon were the Spartans after the battle of Reach ended when they found a stash of experimental UNSC weaponry (this happened in First Strike, they found the Magnum and the Battle Rifle). The weapons were there, and I could see them being in Reach, but I doubt they will be and if they are they'll be a rarity.

  • 09.29.2009 12:25 PM PDT

i dont know about first strike. ive only read the fall of reach and contact harvest. just again to clarify what im saying, a gun introduced in halo 2 doesnt mean it cant exist in games set prior to the events of halo 2. as for the br in the books, i know it was a prototype in contact harvest so by the time of the fall of reach happened it should be a full blown, operational weapon.

  • 09.29.2009 1:05 PM PDT

Bat, I don't think you're quite grasping what we mean by this. The developers at Bungie have to follow a strict story-line. If they made a game, let's say, of American History. Sure, it would be fun if during the Revolutionary War we could use an M-16, but that's not historically accurate. Now let's think, in Halo, there is NO Battle-Rifle before Halo 2. They had the earliest prototype in Contact Harvest, and it was STILL a Prototype in First Strike. Halo 2 showed the first, true operational mass produced Br-55.

Before you start arguing with people who've read ALL the books, played, beaten and understood ALL the games, and people who take Halo very seriously (me included), please read up on all of your facts. Thanks.

/thread

  • 09.29.2009 1:16 PM PDT

Posted by: XaNaX187
Bat, I don't think you're quite grasping what we mean by this. The developers at Bungie have to follow a strict story-line. If they made a game, let's say, of American History. Sure, it would be fun if during the Revolutionary War we could use an M-16, but that's not historically accurate. Now let's think, in Halo, there is NO Battle-Rifle before Halo 2. They had the earliest prototype in Contact Harvest, and it was STILL a Prototype in First Strike. Halo 2 showed the first, true operational mass produced Br-55.

Before you start arguing with people who've read ALL the books, played, beaten and understood ALL the games, and people who take Halo very seriously (me included), please read up on all of your facts. Thanks.

/thread

Just because its a prototype doesn't mean that it won't be in Reach. It doesn't really matter anyways, if there is no Battle Rifle, some other weapon will come to replace the niche.

  • 09.29.2009 1:17 PM PDT

You're absolutely right. There WILL be a mid-range gun that's not as pointless as the Magnum (ODST/CE excluded), I just hope they don't make it as Spam happy as the Br.

  • 09.29.2009 1:37 PM PDT

http://www.planethamachi.com/net_detail.php?&net_detail=H alo+2+FM1

I really hope theres a BR in Halo: REACH, if you dont like it just dont use it.

  • 09.29.2009 1:42 PM PDT

Posted by: Dont pass gass
actually good sir teh br came into the halo universe in contact harvest (before reach!!!! and before halo 1 and all the others)


it was a X version, also spartans werent issued a BR55 until after the fall of reach

  • 09.29.2009 1:44 PM PDT

i like me...

Posted by: bat out of h3ll
i dont know about first strike. ive only read the fall of reach and contact harvest. just again to clarify what im saying, a gun introduced in halo 2 doesnt mean it cant exist in games set prior to the events of halo 2. as for the br in the books, i know it was a prototype in contact harvest so by the time of the fall of reach happened it should be a full blown, operational weapon.


it just depends on how bungie views the battle rifle and what they think is best for the gameplay.

if you havent checked out the Theory - Thread there is a link there with a bungie lead designer paul telling everyone what he thinks about the BR...

http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=37444505&p ostRepeater1-p=2

  • 09.29.2009 2:03 PM PDT

Posted by: XaNaX187
Bat, I don't think you're quite grasping what we mean by this. The developers at Bungie have to follow a strict story-line. If they made a game, let's say, of American History. Sure, it would be fun if during the Revolutionary War we could use an M-16, but that's not historically accurate. Now let's think, in Halo, there is NO Battle-Rifle before Halo 2. They had the earliest prototype in Contact Harvest, and it was STILL a Prototype in First Strike. Halo 2 showed the first, true operational mass produced Br-55.

Before you start arguing with people who've read ALL the books, played, beaten and understood ALL the games, and people who take Halo very seriously (me included), please read up on all of your facts. Thanks.
It's called a retcon, or "newer is more correct". Contact Harvest basically changed the fact to the BR being developed before the Battle of Reach. Even Bungie has stated that the BR being in developement for 27 years is an inconsistency. You should remember that thanks to their age, the first books have errors in them, and whenever they conflict a book, game, or official statement, the old books are trumped.

And Halo 1 not having weapon X is not a valid argument. You were fighting using the scrap weapons from a Halcyon-class cruiser's Marine detachment, not the top technology developed at Reach.

And even if the BR was a prototype, there were these prototypes on Reach, as written in First Strike. To be frank, the book is evidence to the BR being in Halo: Reach.

  • 09.29.2009 2:13 PM PDT

~Cheers~

Who cares if there is no BR in the campaign play of Reach?

You can always have it in MM because there is no story to stick to.

  • 09.29.2009 2:16 PM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"

Posted by: Ihtesam
I really hope theres a BR in Halo: REACH, if you dont like it just dont use it.


That doesn't solve the fact that the BR is the most unbalanced weapon in the game, and should not return in it's current form. If they refine then who knows, but the current BR should stay out of it.

  • 09.29.2009 2:48 PM PDT