Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: In my opinion halo reach was better than the books talking about reach
  • Subject: In my opinion halo reach was better than the books talking about reach
Subject: In my opinion halo reach was better than the books talking about reach
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

leave me alone im busy -blam!- your daughter, sister, girlfriend, wife and grandma.

Moderator Notice: This user has been blacklisted from this forum. Until the user is removed from the blacklist, all posts this user has made have been hidden, and all topics created by this user have been censored.
  • 02.01.2011 5:11 PM PDT

And So Forerunner And Flood Became One.

You never break canon. Halo:Reach broke canon, ergo Halo:Reach bad.

  • 02.01.2011 5:19 PM PDT

Bungie can do whatever they want with the Canon, it's their game.

Games>Books

  • 02.01.2011 5:22 PM PDT


Posted by: Sorta Kinda Yea
You never break canon. Halo:Reach broke canon, ergo Halo:Reach bad.


I never understood how people think Reach ruined Halo's story.

It never touched the Forerunners or Precursors OR the Flood. It hardly touched the Covenant. And all the apparent retcons are actually explained in the Journal save the PoA being on the planet.

It just converted a few dates. It also gave as the Assembly, which is a truly intriguing concept and adds a new layer of mystery.

  • 02.01.2011 5:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Potomo
  • user homepage:

Boomer.
Best. Ship. Ever!

Even if the game didn't break any canon I would still prefer the books. There was no character development and nothing to make you really care about the main characters. No tough decisions to be made and no real surprises.

Jorge was the only character that made me feel something when he died, though that feeling wasn't much. I didn't feel anything when Carter, Kat or when anybody else died because there was nothing to make me care. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way. I know Bungie can do good stories. They just need to get back in their old groove from the marathon days.

Protecting generators was fine in the book and a planet falling in one day makes sense when the planet is out numbered by hundreds of ships with superior technology and when the ships can glass an entire planet's surface in a couple of hours.

[Edited on 02.01.2011 5:31 PM PST]

  • 02.01.2011 5:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag: An0nz
  • user homepage:

CoD is a good game, even if the Halo series are better in some aspects. Anyone who insults either is just bad in that game. Grow up.

I will direct you here to see why Reach's story sucks, game story-wise
And logic wise, Reach was an abomination. Things didn't make sense, both sides acted like retards during the battles, and Reach was portrayed like some random farming colony. There was barely ANY urgency throughout the first 85% of the campaign, and there was no team feeling at all.

All of you people who claim that the longer duration made it better, and I'd like to ask why. It made sense that Reach fell within a day, at least when we're talking about space control. It also brought far more of a shock factor; one day, everything's fine, the next, your largest military base is obliterated. That has some intense emotional impact right there. It showed that even though the UNSC was strong, their enemy was still stronger.
Reach lasting a month, especially with what they showed us, made NO SENSE. What you're saying here is like if I claimed that it takes an entire day to burn a 8" by 17" piece of dry paper.

  • 02.01.2011 6:08 PM PDT

Vengeance only leads to an ongoing cycle of hatred.


Posted by: Sorta Kinda Yea
You never break canon. Halo:Reach broke canon, ergo Halo:Reach bad.

  • 02.01.2011 6:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: mojeda101
Bungie can do whatever they want with the Canon, it's their game.

Games>Books

No, it's Microsoft's game. Bungie was allowed to make it for them. They failed.

  • 02.01.2011 8:13 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Beowolfe
I will direct you here to see why Reach's story sucks, game story-wise
And logic wise, Reach was an abomination. Things didn't make sense, both sides acted like retards during the battles, and Reach was portrayed like some random farming colony. There was barely ANY urgency throughout the first 85% of the campaign, and there was no team feeling at all.

All of you people who claim that the longer duration made it better, and I'd like to ask why. It made sense that Reach fell within a day, at least when we're talking about space control. It also brought far more of a shock factor; one day, everything's fine, the next, your largest military base is obliterated. That has some intense emotional impact right there. It showed that even though the UNSC was strong, their enemy was still stronger.
Reach lasting a month, especially with what they showed us, made NO SENSE. What you're saying here is like if I claimed that it takes an entire day to burn a 8" by 17" piece of dry paper.

I see Reach more like Contact Harvest than The Fall of Reach.

  • 02.01.2011 8:15 PM PDT

Posted by: nightspark

Posted by: Beowolfe
I will direct you here to see why Reach's story sucks, game story-wise
And logic wise, Reach was an abomination. Things didn't make sense, both sides acted like retards during the battles, and Reach was portrayed like some random farming colony. There was barely ANY urgency throughout the first 85% of the campaign, and there was no team feeling at all.

All of you people who claim that the longer duration made it better, and I'd like to ask why. It made sense that Reach fell within a day, at least when we're talking about space control. It also brought far more of a shock factor; one day, everything's fine, the next, your largest military base is obliterated. That has some intense emotional impact right there. It showed that even though the UNSC was strong, their enemy was still stronger.
Reach lasting a month, especially with what they showed us, made NO SENSE. What you're saying here is like if I claimed that it takes an entire day to burn a 8" by 17" piece of dry paper.

I see Reach more like Contact Harvest than The Fall of Reach.



Because bungie portrays reach like a pitiful farming colony rather than the most well equipped military planet in the entire unsc? I see what you mean.

  • 02.01.2011 9:32 PM PDT

lol.

Halo: Reach did a terrible job with the plot. Many things were contradictory, left unexplained and for us to guess at, or plain didn't make sense. I have a huge list I could post but I don't think anyone would want to read it.

For that reason alone the book was better.

  • 02.01.2011 9:58 PM PDT


Posted by: Beowolfe
I will direct you here to see why Reach's story sucks, game story-wise
And logic wise, Reach was an abomination. Things didn't make sense, both sides acted like retards during the battles, and Reach was portrayed like some random farming colony. There was barely ANY urgency throughout the first 85% of the campaign, and there was no team feeling at all.

All of you people who claim that the longer duration made it better, and I'd like to ask why. It made sense that Reach fell within a day, at least when we're talking about space control. It also brought far more of a shock factor; one day, everything's fine, the next, your largest military base is obliterated. That has some intense emotional impact right there. It showed that even though the UNSC was strong, their enemy was still stronger.
Reach lasting a month, especially with what they showed us, made NO SENSE. What you're saying here is like if I claimed that it takes an entire day to burn a 8" by 17" piece of dry paper.


This.

Although I'm sure the xbox wouldn't even be able to hold the force the Covenant displayed that day... I don't need to say anything else.

  • 02.01.2011 10:54 PM PDT

I am a practicing traditional Catholic.

I agree with OP. Halo Reach was epic and it was better than the Fall of Reach book. I mean, if it's the main UNSC base of operations it's not very convincing that it would fall in one day! A month maybe, but not a day. Also I think that haters of the story need to look at it logically.
If Bungie make a game, some author writes a prequel based on their game, and then Bungie decide nine years later to make a game based around this crucial point in the Halo saga it is not surprising that they didn't want to be restricted to what one guy had said happened.
In my opinion Bungie did a spectacular job with Reach and I think it far surpassed what Eric Nylund achieved.
I'm not saying Eric was poor or anything, far from it, but I am saying that Bungie should have the final say on canon.

  • 02.02.2011 12:10 AM PDT

Spinny Elite

I feel there was a sudden migration from the reach forums.

  • 02.02.2011 3:53 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Time was your ally human. But now it has abandoned you. The Forerunners....have returned. And this tomb... is now yours". - The Didact


Posted by: Magna117
I agree with OP. Halo Reach was epic and it was better than the Fall of Reach book. I mean, if it's the main UNSC base of operations it's not very convincing that it would fall in one day! A month maybe, but not a day. Also I think that haters of the story need to look at it logically.
If Bungie make a game, some author writes a prequel based on their game, and then Bungie decide nine years later to make a game based around this crucial point in the Halo saga it is not surprising that they didn't want to be restricted to what one guy had said happened.
In my opinion Bungie did a spectacular job with Reach and I think it far surpassed what Eric Nylund achieved.
I'm not saying Eric was poor or anything, far from it, but I am saying that Bungie should have the final say on canon.


Did you read the book?

You didn't even explained why the Reach story was better then Nylunds version.
In the game we barelly see anything of the military,no massive battles,no fleet,no military bases except one airfield on SWORD.

In the EU version,we saw a massive covenant fleet decimating an inferior outnumbered UNSC fleet.Red Teams stuggle to defend the ODP generators,the fall of the spartans,glassed planet.Massive ground battle like the covies deployed tenthousands of troops just to destroy a single generator facility meanwhile millions of other fought across the planet.

In Halo Reach both sides were incompetent,why did the UNSC didn't evacuated any civilians ?There are many others...

I don't hate the game but the story dissapointed me alot.
They could have followed the fall of reach timeline perfectly with Noble

  • 02.02.2011 3:56 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

The campaign in the game was TERRIBLE. Boring environments, terrible characters and character development, boring and lackluster story, and bland missions. Reach portrayed the battle poorly.

The story of the book was much better, and this Noble team stupidity is just silly.

I respect peoples opinions and all, but in all honesty, anyone that thinks the games story was anywhere near as good as the books is just deluded. Bungie really messed up here.

  • 02.02.2011 5:10 AM PDT

I am a practicing traditional Catholic.


Posted by: hotshot revan II

Posted by: Magna117
I agree with OP. Halo Reach was epic and it was better than the Fall of Reach book. I mean, if it's the main UNSC base of operations it's not very convincing that it would fall in one day! A month maybe, but not a day. Also I think that haters of the story need to look at it logically.
If Bungie make a game, some author writes a prequel based on their game, and then Bungie decide nine years later to make a game based around this crucial point in the Halo saga it is not surprising that they didn't want to be restricted to what one guy had said happened.
In my opinion Bungie did a spectacular job with Reach and I think it far surpassed what Eric Nylund achieved.
I'm not saying Eric was poor or anything, far from it, but I am saying that Bungie should have the final say on canon.


Did you read the book?

You didn't even explained why the Reach story was better then Nylunds version.
In the game we barelly see anything of the military,no massive battles,no fleet,no military bases except one airfield on SWORD.

In the EU version,we saw a massive covenant fleet decimating an inferior outnumbered UNSC fleet.Red Teams stuggle to defend the ODP generators,the fall of the spartans,glassed planet.Massive ground battle like the covies deployed tenthousands of troops just to destroy a single generator facility meanwhile millions of other fought across the planet.

In Halo Reach both sides were incompetent,why did the UNSC didn't evacuated any civilians ?There are many others...

I don't hate the game but the story dissapointed me alot.
They could have followed the fall of reach timeline perfectly with Noble


Yes I have read the book. I would like to point out that in the game you do see massive battles viz. Tip of the Spear. Also if on a lot of levels (for example The Pillar of Autumn) you look at out at the view, you can see huge conflicts going on between the UNSC and the Covenant.
I apologize for not stating why the game was better than the book but there is little point as the OP has already stated most of what I think.
I'm not trying to get into a fight here and if you take offence at this then I'll drop the subject. But my opinion remains unchanged. Game beats book hands down.

  • 02.02.2011 5:39 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

The game would have been boring if everyone had worn the same green suit of Mark V, and all acting like Noble Six.

[Edited on 02.02.2011 5:53 AM PST]

  • 02.02.2011 5:40 AM PDT

Don't worry, you're still your mom's favorite Bnet member.

Absolutely not. Reach falling in one day was immensely better.

When people thought of Reach, they had hope. This was a massive planet, literally covered in UNSC ships ready to fight the Covenant to their dying breath. It was so powerful, so heavily defended, people thought it literally could not fall.

The Titanic is often used as an analogy for the fall of Reach. You have this massive ship, at the time the most glorious on Earth, and it sank on its first voyage. The ship was regarded as unsinkable, so when it sank, absolutely everyone was shocked. The same goes for Reach, such a powerhouse of UNSC military, people thought it was impossible for it to fall. Even when Titanic struck an iceberg, people remained in denial. Even when the Covenant arrived at Reach, no one thought they would win.

But they did. In. One. Day. One day to destroy an entire planet. Could you imagine Earth being attacked, and being obliterated in one day? You can't. Its inconceivable to imagine an entire planet being decimated in 24 hours. It would certainly make me lose hope.

Everything that woke you up in the morning, everything that gave you hope, everything that made you tuck your children in at night and tell them "It's going to be okay", everything that enabled a mother to comfort her child and tell her daddy would be home one day, everything that gave a sick elderly woman a reason to wake up in the morning, gone. In one. Day.

[Edited on 02.02.2011 6:22 AM PST]

  • 02.02.2011 6:20 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Time was your ally human. But now it has abandoned you. The Forerunners....have returned. And this tomb... is now yours". - The Didact


Posted by: Magna117

Posted by: hotshot revan II

Posted by: Magna117
I agree with OP. Halo Reach was epic and it was better than the Fall of Reach book. I mean, if it's the main UNSC base of operations it's not very convincing that it would fall in one day! A month maybe, but not a day. Also I think that haters of the story need to look at it logically.
If Bungie make a game, some author writes a prequel based on their game, and then Bungie decide nine years later to make a game based around this crucial point in the Halo saga it is not surprising that they didn't want to be restricted to what one guy had said happened.
In my opinion Bungie did a spectacular job with Reach and I think it far surpassed what Eric Nylund achieved.
I'm not saying Eric was poor or anything, far from it, but I am saying that Bungie should have the final say on canon.


Did you read the book?

You didn't even explained why the Reach story was better then Nylunds version.
In the game we barelly see anything of the military,no massive battles,no fleet,no military bases except one airfield on SWORD.

In the EU version,we saw a massive covenant fleet decimating an inferior outnumbered UNSC fleet.Red Teams stuggle to defend the ODP generators,the fall of the spartans,glassed planet.Massive ground battle like the covies deployed tenthousands of troops just to destroy a single generator facility meanwhile millions of other fought across the planet.

In Halo Reach both sides were incompetent,why did the UNSC didn't evacuated any civilians ?There are many others...

I don't hate the game but the story dissapointed me alot.
They could have followed the fall of reach timeline perfectly with Noble


Yes I have read the book. I would like to point out that in the game you do see massive battles viz. Tip of the Spear. Also if on a lot of levels (for example The Pillar of Autumn) you look at out at the view, you can see huge conflicts going on between the UNSC and the Covenant.
I apologize for not stating why the game was better than the book but there is little point as the OP has already stated most of what I think.
I'm not trying to get into a fight here and if you take offence at this then I'll drop the subject. But my opinion remains unchanged. Game beats book hands down.


The tip of the spear fight was more like a continent battle just like those battles from WOII.

The only level far better was the pillar of autumn,like you said.But all of these are nothing compared to those in the books.

No problem,but the bungie had no reason to ruin canon.Why did they?
Sure game beats book by canon,but they had no reason to do so.And as you see now,they failed catastrophically with the battle.They promised us big battles,yet more then half the game looked like you fought on a planet with no big fleet engagments above your head or war dialog.

  • 02.02.2011 8:09 AM PDT

By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.

Reach did not adhere to the Halo Story Bible, it broke canon, it was awful.

  • 02.02.2011 8:35 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I just play for fun. MLG can kiss my ass.

To all of you harping about Reach being "a catastrophe", all I can say is are you harping about it because the game kicked your butt? Or are you harping about because you like to diss every game you play because you have no skill?

  • 02.05.2011 8:29 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Time was your ally human. But now it has abandoned you. The Forerunners....have returned. And this tomb... is now yours". - The Didact


Posted by: Caaaarrrl
To all of you harping about Reach being "a catastrophe", all I can say is are you harping about it because the game kicked your butt? Or are you harping about because you like to diss every game you play because you have no skill?


I'm a super die hard Halo fan.I was completely hyped for Reach and was defending it against heretics and COD fans.But after it's release i got more and more dissapointed by the canon breaches and the story.

I'm still enraged now

  • 02.05.2011 8:33 AM PDT

I am a practicing traditional Catholic.

I still think Reach is awesome. And I think The Fall of Reach is highly overrated. I mean, the actual fall of Reach only took up about a quarter (at the most) of the book and it wasn't that great anyway. Blue team spent most of their time running around on Orbital Stations (or whatever) instead of battling it out on the ground where the action was.
Nah, game is still better.

[Edited on 02.05.2011 9:01 AM PST]

  • 02.05.2011 9:00 AM PDT