Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why reach will NOT have the BR!
  • Subject: Why reach will NOT have the BR!
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Why reach will NOT have the BR!

Xbox Live, ad me if you like

Geoxbreather

Simply because Halo reach is a new "area" of the Halo franchise.
Halo 1, 2 and 3 (and ODST) all spawned from halo 1.
expecting the BR and other things from the current halo games in Reach inst a realistic thought, as this game is not really in direct connection with Halo 1, 2 and 3.

The story might be related, but game play wise it will be different from 1/2/3/ODST since it doesn't continue the story we have seen so far.

  • 11.01.2009 6:20 AM PDT

There IS a God! We're all saved!

It is directly connected by story line, infact I would consider it a major Halo title unlike Halo Wars. Don't get me wrong, Halo Wars is an amazing game (though very unbalanced), but it fell short in continueing any part of the plot. Yes, Covenant attacked Harvest and now we know they were after something but that doesn't refine or further the story of the Ark (Halo 1,2 and 3) at all. Halo: Reach will probably be the origin game that Halo Wars failed to be.

By the way, I don't agree with your logic but I hope the Battle Rifle isn't in the game. I like it, it's pretty and works in every situation but that's exactly why I want it gone. Soldeirs can't go to war with the perfect tool they need something that does one part of the job and another weapon to finish that job. Having a Battle Rifle was fun but now it's just over-used.

[Edited on 11.01.2009 6:28 AM PST]

  • 11.01.2009 6:22 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I am your Father. NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! freakin retard dont believe me

obviously its before halo 1 and after halo wars so no

  • 11.01.2009 6:25 AM PDT

Fancy joining a group, but don't wan't people too obsessed and serious? Want a group where messing around is a given?

DO YOU WANT TO BE A NINJA?

Then I have three words for you. Team Flying Ninja

Alternatively, add me and we will be happy to tell you about ourselves.

Posted by: Geoxbreather
Simply because Halo reach is a new "area" of the Halo franchise.
Halo 1, 2 and 3 (and ODST) all spawned from halo 1.
expecting the BR and other things from the current halo games in Reach inst a realistic thought, as this game is not really in direct connection with Halo 1, 2 and 3.

The story might be related, but game play wise it will be different from 1/2/3/ODST since it doesn't continue the story we have seen so far.



Not technically true. The Battle Rifle was introduced to the SPARTAN's that were serving on Reach at it's downfall. Yes, it was a prototype, but they still had them. So it is entirely plausible that there will be a BR.

  • 11.01.2009 6:26 AM PDT

Are you saying that militaries won't have rifles 500 years from now? Last time I checked we DO have rifles that are used from mid to short range. It may not be a battle rifle, but it will still be realistic if there is a rifle that functions like a BR.

"Having a BR wouldnt make it realistic". You guys are hilarious.

XD

  • 11.01.2009 6:30 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Don't send me group invites unless i know you. pl0x.

Posted by: Geoxbreather
Simply because Halo reach is a new "area" of the Halo franchise.


This doesn't mean anything. So? Just because a game is a prologue doesn't mean it has to have weapons removed, some gameplay aspects altered, has to become a totally new game genre, or even be the same as the franchise's previous games, etc.

If something would affect the canon, then yes, some weapons might have to be removed, but Bungie must and will make decisions first based on gameplay.

  • 11.01.2009 6:32 AM PDT

Posted by: jayfngtwo
Are you saying that militaries won't have rifles 500 years from now? Last time I checked we DO have rifles that are used from mid to short range. It may not be a battle rifle, but it will still be realistic if there is a rifle that functions like a BR.

"Having a BR wouldnt make it realistic". You guys are hilarious.

XD


Agreed. I think that if they don't have the Battle Rifle they will have something less powerful but still effective to take its place.

  • 11.01.2009 6:33 AM PDT

Posted by: CrippleFox
I hope the Battle Rifle isn't in the game. I like it, it's pretty and works in every situation but that's exactly why I want it gone. Soldeirs can't go to war with the perfect tool they need something that does one part of the job and another weapon to finish that job. Having a Battle Rifle was fun but now it's just over-used.


I'd have to disagree. Battle Rifles are not the perfect "tool" people claim them to be. They cannot simply kill a person with one shot when the target's shields are full. They can only be used effectively from mid to short range. That means if you are a decent sniper then you can easily take out someone with a BR no problem. If a player using a BR is facing off againt two players with ARs in a closed area fight then the people using the ARs are going to win because the AR is a short ranged weapon. If a player with a BR can pick you off from far distances then they have obviously became a bit skilled with the weapon. But that's because they took the time to become skilled with the weapon. When people are picking off people left to right with the sniper thats because they have taken the time to become skilled with it. When someone gets hordes of kills with the Splaser thats because they have taken the time to become skilled with the weapon. You can become skilled with any weapon in Halo, even a weapon like the plasma pistol or the needler. Halo is all about using weapons in the right scenario also. So if you see some from mid to long range then you would use a weapon like the sniper or the BR. If you are going to battle someone at close range then a weapon like the AR or the shotgun would be suitable. If you see a large horde of enemies then you are going to use something like the rocket launcher. Also, how do you think scenarios would work out when someone has a Sniper and there are no mid to long range weapons? A weapon like the AR wont be able to reach far distances to supress the sniper. The BR is a weapon that is used in certain scenarios like that. The BR is not a horrible weapon just because a large number of people use it. If there was no weapon like the BR or Carbine then people would complain about weapons like the AR or the Magnum being overused (simply because those are starting weapons). When it comes down to it I think a weapon LIKE the BR is a must.

[Edited on 11.01.2009 6:50 AM PST]

  • 11.01.2009 6:47 AM PDT

Posted by: jayfngtwo
Posted by: CrippleFox
I hope the Battle Rifle isn't in the game. I like it, it's pretty and works in every situation but that's exactly why I want it gone. Soldeirs can't go to war with the perfect tool they need something that does one part of the job and another weapon to finish that job. Having a Battle Rifle was fun but now it's just over-used.


I'd have to disagree. Battle Rifles are not the perfect "tool" people claim them to be. They cannot simply kill a person with one shot when the target's shields are full. They can only be used effectively from mid to short range. That means if you are a decent sniper then you can easily take out someone with a BR no problem. If a player using a BR is facing off againt two players with ARs in a closed area fight then the people using the ARs are going to win because the AR is a short ranged weapon. If a player with a BR can pick you off from far distances then they have obviously became a bit skilled with the weapon. But that's because they took the time to become skilled with the weapon. When people are picking off people left to right with the sniper thats because they have taken the time to become skilled with it. When someone gets hordes of kills with the Splaser thats because they have taken the time to become skilled with the weapon. You can become skilled with any weapon in Halo, even a weapon like the plasma pistol or the needler. Halo is all about using weapons in the right scenario also. So if you see some from mid to long range then you would use a weapon like the sniper or the BR. If you are going to battle someone at close range then a weapon like the AR or the shotgun would be suitable. If you see a large horde of enemies then you are going to use something like the rocket launcher. Also, how do you think scenarios would work out when someone has a Sniper and there are no mid to long range weapons? A weapon like the AR wont be able to reach far distances to supress the sniper. The BR is a weapon that is used in certan scenarios like that. The BR is not a horrible weapon just because a large number of people use it. If there was no weapon like the BR or Carbine then people would complain about weapons like the AR or the Magnum being overused (simply because those are starting weapons). When it comes down to it I think a weapon LIKE the BR is a must.


I see your point but the example with the Assault Rifle... well... that's a stacked scenario. That's a two on one. It could easily be any other weapon two on one and the Battle Rifle user is most likely to lose assuming the other two players are not being interrupted by someone else have are decent enought to hit with most of their shots.

The Battle Rifle is great in MOST situations. If you have a sniper shooting at you from across the map, you may not be able to kill him but you can stall and get closer by making them zoom out by shooting them. As you get closer, using cove and such you can now use grenades and have an effective firefight with the sniper at mid to close range and most likely win. In close combat all you need to do is melee and shoot or shoot and melee. Unless it's the carbine, no other weapon can counter every other weapon like the Battle Rifle can. Either way, they took it out of ODST for my reasons, it was too powerfull, to accessable and too easy to use in every situation. The pistol in ODST isn't effective against shields but once those shields are gone you have an open opperotunity to headshot them. You need to get there first using another weapon though which makes the game more interesting gameplay wise. Which, as someone else said, will be what Bungie looks at before story and canon.

  • 11.01.2009 6:57 AM PDT

Xbox Live, ad me if you like

Geoxbreather

Posted by: ZeroBaka
You don't know that yet. All I know is that if Reach doesn't have a BR, I won't be buying it unless there is a weapon equivalent to it.

Are you seriously not buying a game just over some in-game weapon it might (not) have. I will buy a game always because of it's great story. MP is always secondary.

But what I meant, the Br won't be appearing because REach will be a "stand alone game" if you want.
It is NOT in line with Halo 1, Halo 2 and Halo 3. Otherwise it would have been called Halo 4.

It is Halo, but different kind of Halo, man my crappy english doesnt help me explain. It's like a movie, Altough it might be "halloween" it doesnt have the same characters perse, or the same death's perse, etc.

  • 11.01.2009 7:00 AM PDT

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

Common sense tells you there will be a BR. Just not like the one we saw in Halo 2 and Halo 3. There will be slight changes to it, mostly cosmetic I assume.

  • 11.01.2009 7:13 AM PDT

Posted by: Geoxbreather
But what I meant, the Br won't be appearing because REach will be a "stand alone game" if you want
It is NOT in line with Halo 1, Halo 2 and Halo 3. Otherwise it would have been called Halo 4.


Wrong. I made a thread calling it Halo 4 and had a bunch of proof to back it up. My main evidence was that in the source code to one of Microsoft/Bungies Halo Game websites it said Halo 4 BETA is included with Halo 3: ODST. One of the Bungie employees came on to my thread and (rudely) said it was code for Reach.
Halo 4

  • 11.01.2009 7:15 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Don't send me group invites unless i know you. pl0x.

Posted by: CrippleFox
I see your point but the example with the Assault Rifle... well... that's a stacked scenario. That's a two on one. It could easily be any other weapon two on one and the Battle Rifle user is most likely to lose assuming the other two players are not being interrupted by someone else have are decent enought to hit with most of their shots.


Eh, in any 1v1 situation where the players are a few feet apart, and 1 player is an AR user and the other is a BR user, I'll promise anyone that the AR will win most of the time. Yeah, the 2v1 situation was uneccessary and makes the BR seem more powerful than it actually is.

Posted by: CrippleFox
The Battle Rifle is great in MOST situations. If you have a sniper shooting at you from across the map, you may not be able to kill him but you can stall and get closer by making them zoom out by shooting them. As you get closer, using cove and such you can now use grenades and have an effective firefight with the sniper at mid to close range and most likely win. In close combat all you need to do is melee and shoot or shoot and melee. Unless it's the carbine, no other weapon can counter every other weapon like the Battle Rifle can. Either way, they took it out of ODST for my reasons, it was too powerfull, to accessable and too easy to use in every situation. The pistol in ODST isn't effective against shields but once those shields are gone you have an open opperotunity to headshot them. You need to get there first using another weapon though which makes the game more interesting gameplay wise. Which, as someone else said, will be what Bungie looks at before story and canon.


Regarding the Sniper comment: You're assuming that this Sniper player is stupid and isn't moving around when they know they're in danger, OR they don't have something like a Shotgun, Mauler, Sword, OR a teammate isn't there to help them. Yes, stuff like what you said happens, but it usually doesn't take 1 BR user to take out a Sniper who is aware of said BR user.

Regarding close combat comment: I'll reference what I said in your previous quote. More times than not, an AR, Shotgun, Sword, SMG, etc user will kill a BR user at close range than not. Again, it does happen, but not as often where the BR will get the kill the majority of the time.

The BR is overused, NOT overpowered. The problem is, is that Halo's (heck, any FPS out there) gameplay is geared towards mid range combat, but most of the weapons are geared towards close range. Thus where you see the BR's dominance. Weapons suited for close range are being used out of their effective ranges, then you have people complaing about the weapon.

If the BR is a large problem with gameplay (and it's not, you NEED weapons that work at mid range and can kill /magnumfailsrant), then there are more solutions than simply removing the BR. How about creating more weapons that fit in mid range (such as ODST's SMG and Pistol) that close the gap between close and mid range and restrict the BR's placement around maps? That way, people can still operate guns at medium range (so gameplay isn't totally destroyed), but the BR isn't overused.

Hey, if I come off as offensive, I'm sorry. I was just making counter points, that's all. =)

My last two paragraphs weren't directed towards you, but more towards people who think the BR equates to bad gameplay.

  • 11.01.2009 7:23 AM PDT

Otherwise known as Sevi D!!

maybe they will have the prototype version of the br. no scope and maybe weaker

  • 11.01.2009 7:26 AM PDT

Posted by: Dallas Green
I make a legitimate thread on the most logical choice for the next Bond actor, and you take that away from me by creating a parody thread indirectly connecting my thread to yours.

I hope your kids have bad influences and develop bad personalities. I wish this with all my heart.

The had prototypes on Harvest that worked perfectly. Perhaps a special mission group you play as may have one. Otherwise, I don't know. It's too late now the multiplayer's done, which means that the Campaign weapons are probably all done. We'll just have to wait for the Beta.

  • 11.01.2009 7:26 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Don't send me group invites unless i know you. pl0x.

Posted by: CrippleFox
Wrong. I made a thread calling it Halo 4 and had a bunch of proof to back it up. My main evidence was that in the source code to one of Microsoft/Bungies Halo Game websites it said Halo 4 BETA is included with Halo 3: ODST. One of the Bungie employees came on to my thread and (rudely) said it was code for Reach.
Halo 4


odmichael is not a Bungie employee. Anyone with orange writing isn't a Bungie employee. Look for the gold writing.

  • 11.01.2009 7:27 AM PDT

To be honset with you I like playing Halo without the BR. IMO it evens the playing field.

  • 11.01.2009 7:27 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Don't send me group invites unless i know you. pl0x.

Posted by: ZeroBaka
Posted by: Geoxbreather
Are you seriously not buying a game just over some in-game weapon it might (not) have. I will buy a game always because of it's great story. MP is always secondary.

But what I meant, the Br won't be appearing because REach will be a "stand alone game" if you want.
It is NOT in line with Halo 1, Halo 2 and Halo 3. Otherwise it would have been called Halo 4.

It is Halo, but different kind of Halo, man my crappy english doesnt help me explain. It's like a movie, Altough it might be "halloween" it doesnt have the same characters perse, or the same death's perse, etc.

Sure, the campaign is always great for a few days, or maybe even a week or two. But multiplayer is where most of the community devotes most of their time when it comes to Halo. If I'm not having fun (trust me, if there's no BR, then I personally will not have fun), then what's the use of buying it? For a week of entertainment from campaign? I'd rather rent it if that's the case.

Also, Reach is a prequel. It is in line with the first three games. It deals with the events leading up to them.


QFT.

  • 11.01.2009 7:29 AM PDT

Xbox Live, ad me if you like

Geoxbreather

I've read the books, however dont remember what happend haha (been ages)

but I like to think of the BR's on reach to be explanatory on how the BR made existence in the Halo2 and halo 3 era.

And I dont think bungie will recycle the BR and give it a revamp in REach. I feel that for gameplay reasons, the BR is gone.

  • 11.01.2009 7:34 AM PDT

Posted by: Mythic 22 T
Posted by: CrippleFox
I see your point but the example with the Assault Rifle... well... that's a stacked scenario. That's a two on one. It could easily be any other weapon two on one and the Battle Rifle user is most likely to lose assuming the other two players are not being interrupted by someone else have are decent enought to hit with most of their shots.


Eh, in any 1v1 situation where the players are a few feet apart, and 1 player is an AR user and the other is a BR user, I'll promise anyone that the AR will win most of the time. Yeah, the 2v1 situation was uneccessary and makes the BR seem more powerful than it actually is.

Posted by: CrippleFox
The Battle Rifle is great in MOST situations. If you have a sniper shooting at you from across the map, you may not be able to kill him but you can stall and get closer by making them zoom out by shooting them. As you get closer, using cove and such you can now use grenades and have an effective firefight with the sniper at mid to close range and most likely win. In close combat all you need to do is melee and shoot or shoot and melee. Unless it's the carbine, no other weapon can counter every other weapon like the Battle Rifle can. Either way, they took it out of ODST for my reasons, it was too powerfull, to accessable and too easy to use in every situation. The pistol in ODST isn't effective against shields but once those shields are gone you have an open opperotunity to headshot them. You need to get there first using another weapon though which makes the game more interesting gameplay wise. Which, as someone else said, will be what Bungie looks at before story and canon.


Regarding the Sniper comment: You're assuming that this Sniper player is stupid and isn't moving around when they know they're in danger, OR they don't have something like a Shotgun, Mauler, Sword, OR a teammate isn't there to help them. Yes, stuff like what you said happens, but it usually doesn't take 1 BR user to take out a Sniper who is aware of said BR user.

Regarding close combat comment: I'll reference what I said in your previous quote. More times than not, an AR, Shotgun, Sword, SMG, etc user will kill a BR user at close range than not. Again, it does happen, but not as often where the BR will get the kill the majority of the time.

The BR is overused, NOT overpowered. The problem is, is that Halo's (heck, any FPS out there) gameplay is geared towards mid range combat, but most of the weapons are geared towards close range. Thus where you see the BR's dominance. Weapons suited for close range are being used out of their effective ranges, then you have people complaing about the weapon.

If the BR is a large problem with gameplay (and it's not, you NEED weapons that work at mid range and can kill /magnumfailsrant), then there are more solutions than simply removing the BR. How about creating more weapons that fit in mid range (such as ODST's SMG and Pistol) that close the gap between close and mid range and restrict the BR's placement around maps? That way, people can still operate guns at medium range (so gameplay isn't totally destroyed), but the BR isn't overused.

Hey, if I come off as offensive, I'm sorry. I was just making counter points, that's all. =)

My last two paragraphs weren't directed towards you, but more towards people who think the BR equates to bad gameplay.


No problem, I see your points but I still respectfully disagree. Bungie is with me, or atleast that one employee whos name I can't remember who hates Battle Rifles. They agree enough with me to even take it out of ODST.

  • 11.01.2009 7:36 AM PDT

Posted by: CrippleFox
Posted by: Mythic 22 T
Posted by: CrippleFox
I see your point but the example with the Assault Rifle... well... that's a stacked scenario. That's a two on one. It could easily be any other weapon two on one and the Battle Rifle user is most likely to lose assuming the other two players are not being interrupted by someone else have are decent enought to hit with most of their shots.


Eh, in any 1v1 situation where the players are a few feet apart, and 1 player is an AR user and the other is a BR user, I'll promise anyone that the AR will win most of the time. Yeah, the 2v1 situation was uneccessary and makes the BR seem more powerful than it actually is.

Posted by: CrippleFox
The Battle Rifle is great in MOST situations. If you have a sniper shooting at you from across the map, you may not be able to kill him but you can stall and get closer by making them zoom out by shooting them. As you get closer, using cove and such you can now use grenades and have an effective firefight with the sniper at mid to close range and most likely win. In close combat all you need to do is melee and shoot or shoot and melee. Unless it's the carbine, no other weapon can counter every other weapon like the Battle Rifle can. Either way, they took it out of ODST for my reasons, it was too powerfull, to accessable and too easy to use in every situation. The pistol in ODST isn't effective against shields but once those shields are gone you have an open opperotunity to headshot them. You need to get there first using another weapon though which makes the game more interesting gameplay wise. Which, as someone else said, will be what Bungie looks at before story and canon.


Regarding the Sniper comment: You're assuming that this Sniper player is stupid and isn't moving around when they know they're in danger, OR they don't have something like a Shotgun, Mauler, Sword, OR a teammate isn't there to help them. Yes, stuff like what you said happens, but it usually doesn't take 1 BR user to take out a Sniper who is aware of said BR user.

Regarding close combat comment: I'll reference what I said in your previous quote. More times than not, an AR, Shotgun, Sword, SMG, etc user will kill a BR user at close range than not. Again, it does happen, but not as often where the BR will get the kill the majority of the time.

The BR is overused, NOT overpowered. The problem is, is that Halo's (heck, any FPS out there) gameplay is geared towards mid range combat, but most of the weapons are geared towards close range. Thus where you see the BR's dominance. Weapons suited for close range are being used out of their effective ranges, then you have people complaing about the weapon.

If the BR is a large problem with gameplay (and it's not, you NEED weapons that work at mid range and can kill /magnumfailsrant), then there are more solutions than simply removing the BR. How about creating more weapons that fit in mid range (such as ODST's SMG and Pistol) that close the gap between close and mid range and restrict the BR's placement around maps? That way, people can still operate guns at medium range (so gameplay isn't totally destroyed), but the BR isn't overused.

Hey, if I come off as offensive, I'm sorry. I was just making counter points, that's all. =)

My last two paragraphs weren't directed towards you, but more towards people who think the BR equates to bad gameplay.


No problem, I see your points but I still respectfully disagree. Bungie is with me, or atleast that one employee whos name I can't remember who hates Battle Rifles. They agree enough with me to even take it out of ODST.

Paul Bertone.

  • 11.01.2009 7:38 AM PDT

I used to get on these forums back in the Halo 1, anticipating Halo 2 days...I'm back :)

I love how some people just KNOW certain things about Reach. It's so cute

  • 11.01.2009 7:39 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3