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

Signatures are for squares.

Posted by: Magna117
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.


The battle for Reach was better depicted in First Strike. Half the book was devoted to Reach.

Reach's story fell flat on it's face because of Bungie's blatant ignorance to the rest of the pre-established canon.

  • 02.05.2011 9:09 AM PDT

Halo: Reach made reach seems like a defenseless worthless farming colony.

  • 02.05.2011 9:12 AM PDT

I am a practicing traditional Catholic.


Posted by: privet caboose
Posted by: Magna117
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.


The battle for Reach was better depicted in First Strike. Half the book was devoted to Reach.

Reach's story fell flat on it's face because of Bungie's blatant ignorance to the rest of the pre-established canon.


I don't think Bungie were "ignorant". They simply didn't want to be tied down by someone else's story ideas. Someone else who wasn't even a Bungie staff member. I think that is very reasonable and understandable indeed.

  • 02.05.2011 9:19 AM PDT

im not troll'n
crazy capers
Follow me on twitter
Check out my xat
*~*~*~*~*~*~*IListen2No1*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*

jorge and six were the only decent deaths and books were way better

  • 02.05.2011 9:42 AM PDT

im not troll'n
crazy capers
Follow me on twitter
Check out my xat
*~*~*~*~*~*~*IListen2No1*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*


Posted by: Magna117
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.


they were on the orbital stations because reach would fall without them

  • 02.05.2011 9:45 AM 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.


Posted by: Magna117
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.

Cus running around turning on AAs are so much more exciting. Noble team took like 2 weeks to finally start fighting back at the enemies, whereas Red Alpha destroyed a covenant (cruiser I believe) within a couple hours of landing on the surface of Reach. Not to mention the million plot holes that litter the entire campaign. Blue team wasn't the main Spartan force on the ground, so I don't see how that affects things.

I'm on the same boat as hotshot revan, Reach was made for multiplayer, not for the story, which is simply disappointing.

  • 02.05.2011 11:22 AM 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.


Posted by: Magna117

Posted by: privet caboose
Posted by: Magna117
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.


The battle for Reach was better depicted in First Strike. Half the book was devoted to Reach.

Reach's story fell flat on it's face because of Bungie's blatant ignorance to the rest of the pre-established canon.


I don't think Bungie were "ignorant". They simply didn't want to be tied down by someone else's story ideas. Someone else who wasn't even a Bungie staff member. I think that is very reasonable and understandable indeed.

Why the hell do people keep saying this? The novels, or at least TFoR and most likely others written by Eric Nylund, are based STRICTLY on what he was given by Bungie to work with. He didn't bull-blam!- and make a story of his own, but rather gave a representation of what Bungie wanted to express.

As well, fine, if you don't want to be tied down, then make YOUR (as in Bungie's) story actually GOOD. The story is filled with plot holes and nonsensical Hollywood drama.

  • 02.05.2011 11:25 AM PDT

"It is done. By my hands. The pyrrhic solution is ignited. All I have left is the quiet of space to lull me to sleep.
I will dream of you." - The Didact

I like the books better. I strongly disliked the storyline of Halo: Reach....very disappointing in my opinion.

  • 02.05.2011 11:46 AM PDT

I agree with you mostly, Op, though I'm more toward the middle of the road in regards to Reach, there are some things that still need to be settled, but the canon is not completely destroyed, only slightly bent. And I agree, the depiction of the Battle of Reach in Reach is way better than in TFoR, it does not make any sense at all for the Covenant to completely kick the collective asses of the UNSC Navy in a couple hours on their second strongest planet. It especially doesn't make sense in comparison to the accounts of the other battles with fairly even odds.

These points are not addressed to you Op, but rather to the opposition.
And Reach was hardly a "pitiful farmer colony" making such claims only makes you look like an idiot. If you are drawing your conclusions from the first and third level then the same conclusion from the same sort of evidence can be made about Earth. Actually we saw more of the defenses of Reach than we ever did of Earth, we saw a whole -blam!- CITY with buildings nearly the same size as the ones on Coruscant in Star Wars. Reach is most definitely not portrayed as a "pitiful, random farmer colony" in Reach.

You people claim that Reach does not portray the Spartans accurately, well the books have always contradicted the games, in the games Chief is never portrayed as he is in the books. He does not act like a robot to his authority, he is respectful and polite of course, but he is not snapping a salute every other second, nor is he stiff and without personality. Ok, so it's only Master Chief that conflicts, and seeing as how none of the other book characters have appeared we haven't seen Bungie's take on them, but without a doubt the book's portrayal of Master Chief is not accurate to his character at all. I don't see where you're getting the idea that Bungie is horrible at portraying their characters, other than pulling it out of your ass. I don't see anything conflicting at all between Bungie Spartans and book Spartans besides the Master Chief issue.

  • 02.05.2011 8:51 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.


Posted by: OrderedComa
I agree with you mostly, Op, though I'm more toward the middle of the road in regards to Reach, there are some things that still need to be settled, but the canon is not completely destroyed, only slightly bent. And I agree, the depiction of the Battle of Reach in Reach is way better than in TFoR, it does not make any sense at all for the Covenant to completely kick the collective asses of the UNSC Navy in a couple hours on their second strongest planet. It especially doesn't make sense in comparison to the accounts of the other battles with fairly even odds.

These points are not addressed to you Op, but rather to the opposition.
And Reach was hardly a "pitiful farmer colony" making such claims only makes you look like an idiot. If you are drawing your conclusions from the first and third level then the same conclusion from the same sort of evidence can be made about Earth. Actually we saw more of the defenses of Reach than we ever did of Earth, we saw a whole -blam!- CITY with buildings nearly the same size as the ones on Coruscant in Star Wars. Reach is most definitely not portrayed as a "pitiful, random farmer colony" in Reach.

You people claim that Reach does not portray the Spartans accurately, well the books have always contradicted the games, in the games Chief is never portrayed as he is in the books. He does not act like a robot to his authority, he is respectful and polite of course, but he is not snapping a salute every other second, nor is he stiff and without personality. Ok, so it's only Master Chief that conflicts, and seeing as how none of the other book characters have appeared we haven't seen Bungie's take on them, but without a doubt the book's portrayal of Master Chief is not accurate to his character at all. I don't see where you're getting the idea that Bungie is horrible at portraying their characters, other than pulling it out of your ass. I don't see anything conflicting at all between Bungie Spartans and book Spartans besides the Master Chief issue.

Opinions opinions.

Oh logic, where have you gone?

  • 02.05.2011 9:32 PM PDT

Welcome to bungie, you have no rights. play nice!
CLICK!


Posted by: OrderedComa
I agree with you mostly, Op, though I'm more toward the middle of the road in regards to Reach, there are some things that still need to be settled, but the canon is not completely destroyed, only slightly bent. And I agree, the depiction of the Battle of Reach in Reach is way better than in TFoR, it does not make any sense at all for the Covenant to completely kick the collective asses of the UNSC Navy in a couple hours on their second strongest planet. It especially doesn't make sense in comparison to the accounts of the other battles with fairly even odds.

These points are not addressed to you Op, but rather to the opposition.
And Reach was hardly a "pitiful farmer colony" making such claims only makes you look like an idiot. If you are drawing your conclusions from the first and third level then the same conclusion from the same sort of evidence can be made about Earth. Actually we saw more of the defenses of Reach than we ever did of Earth, we saw a whole -blam!- CITY with buildings nearly the same size as the ones on Coruscant in Star Wars. Reach is most definitely not portrayed as a "pitiful, random farmer colony" in Reach.

You people claim that Reach does not portray the Spartans accurately, well the books have always contradicted the games, in the games Chief is never portrayed as he is in the books. He does not act like a robot to his authority, he is respectful and polite of course, but he is not snapping a salute every other second, nor is he stiff and without personality. Ok, so it's only Master Chief that conflicts, and seeing as how none of the other book characters have appeared we haven't seen Bungie's take on them, but without a doubt the book's portrayal of Master Chief is not accurate to his character at all. I don't see where you're getting the idea that Bungie is horrible at portraying their characters, other than pulling it out of your ass. I don't see anything conflicting at all between Bungie Spartans and book Spartans besides the Master Chief issue.


... There is no John issue.

  • 02.05.2011 9:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

So it makes sense that the UNSC survived a month against the Covenant, even though they were HEAVILY outnumbered?

  • 02.06.2011 12:24 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Instead of playing as Noble 6 on Reach, I'd rather the Covenant perspective. Fighting Spartans in a HUGE battle, that would be intense.

  • 02.06.2011 12:46 AM PDT

Don't cross the white line.

"Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give a Halo regular a fish, and he'll complain about the taste, color, type, size, where you found it, how you obtained it, whether or not you'll give him more fish later, and I don't know how many more things.And then when you give him another fish, he'll complain that it's not exactly like the first fish. Rinse and repeat."

Posted by: Magna117
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.

Woop de do! I get to see big battles going on. Brilliant.

/sarcasm.

If I wanted to see big battles, I'd watch a film. The whole point of a game is that you're in that huge battle, not cruising on the side lines watching. Especially as you can't stop for long because you've got to destroy the next frickin' AA gun.

  • 02.06.2011 1:25 AM PDT

'There are many aspects of the universe that still cannot be explained satisfactorily by science; but ignorance only implies ignorance that may someday be conquered. To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.'
-Isaac Asimov

I just have to say this now. Bungie approved the plot for The Fall of Reach the halo bible was made so he could follow canon. So Bungie was pretty much was like Yea the plot for this book is good do it, it is now canon approved by Bungie and Halo Bible. 10 years later hey lets do The Fall of Reach, remember that book we approved we could use some of that plot, nah bro lets make this epic that books not canon. Not canon, but they approved it saying it was and the halo bible did also. Hmmm Bungie wtf happened there???

  • 02.06.2011 1:39 AM PDT

I prefer the books more to the games. Why? The Books offer me scenes that the games could never even hope to accomplish on the most part. The books capture the real emotion and struggle that the Halo series is meant to show, the games almost always fail to show the true struggle of humanity in the games (We barely hear Marines or Army troopers in the games crying out in panic as elites with energy swords rush their positions instead they sit back and crack crappy one liners). I remember the short story "Dirt" from Halo Evolutions and to me that caught the atmosphere of the war between the Humans and Covenant from a soldier view perfectly, I get chills a little when I remember the description of the spartan the came to aid the ODSTs while they were defending a museum.

The books also show the true brutality of the Covenant.

Think Grunts are just little push-overs? Try fighting them when there is literally thousands of them rushing your position over and over again in neverending waves with each mag you empty in one another will take it's place. The books and comics aren't afraid to show the real damage that the plasma weapons do and it's enough to take off your head in a bloody mess or leave you with a large gaping hole in your side.

Because of tech restraints now, we probably won't ever get a Halo like that but maybe one day we will. Now if you excuse me I'm going to read about two SP-IIIs take out an entire Covenant outpost on their own.

  • 02.06.2011 1:42 AM PDT

'There are many aspects of the universe that still cannot be explained satisfactorily by science; but ignorance only implies ignorance that may someday be conquered. To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.'
-Isaac Asimov

Posted by: Beowolfe

Posted by: Magna117

Posted by: privet caboose
Posted by: Magna117
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.


The battle for Reach was better depicted in First Strike. Half the book was devoted to Reach.

Reach's story fell flat on it's face because of Bungie's blatant ignorance to the rest of the pre-established canon.


I don't think Bungie were "ignorant". They simply didn't want to be tied down by someone else's story ideas. Someone else who wasn't even a Bungie staff member. I think that is very reasonable and understandable indeed.

Why the hell do people keep saying this? The novels, or at least TFoR and most likely others written by Eric Nylund, are based STRICTLY on what he was given by Bungie to work with. He didn't bull-blam!- and make a story of his own, but rather gave a representation of what Bungie wanted to express.

As well, fine, if you don't want to be tied down, then make YOUR (as in Bungie's) story actually GOOD. The story is filled with plot holes and nonsensical Hollywood drama.
Another person who knows! Finally!

  • 02.06.2011 1:42 AM PDT


Posted by: Beowolfe

Posted by: OrderedComa
I agree with you mostly, Op, though I'm more toward the middle of the road in regards to Reach, there are some things that still need to be settled, but the canon is not completely destroyed, only slightly bent. And I agree, the depiction of the Battle of Reach in Reach is way better than in TFoR, it does not make any sense at all for the Covenant to completely kick the collective asses of the UNSC Navy in a couple hours on their second strongest planet. It especially doesn't make sense in comparison to the accounts of the other battles with fairly even odds.

These points are not addressed to you Op, but rather to the opposition.
And Reach was hardly a "pitiful farmer colony" making such claims only makes you look like an idiot. If you are drawing your conclusions from the first and third level then the same conclusion from the same sort of evidence can be made about Earth. Actually we saw more of the defenses of Reach than we ever did of Earth, we saw a whole -blam!- CITY with buildings nearly the same size as the ones on Coruscant in Star Wars. Reach is most definitely not portrayed as a "pitiful, random farmer colony" in Reach.

You people claim that Reach does not portray the Spartans accurately, well the books have always contradicted the games, in the games Chief is never portrayed as he is in the books. He does not act like a robot to his authority, he is respectful and polite of course, but he is not snapping a salute every other second, nor is he stiff and without personality. Ok, so it's only Master Chief that conflicts, and seeing as how none of the other book characters have appeared we haven't seen Bungie's take on them, but without a doubt the book's portrayal of Master Chief is not accurate to his character at all. I don't see where you're getting the idea that Bungie is horrible at portraying their characters, other than pulling it out of your ass. I don't see anything conflicting at all between Bungie Spartans and book Spartans besides the Master Chief issue.

Opinions opinions.

Oh logic, where have you gone?
Logic is opinions that we believe to be true

  • 02.06.2011 3:33 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: xXFatal v1
So it makes sense that the UNSC survived a month against the Covenant, even though they were HEAVILY outnumbered?


They weren't outnumbered until August 30. The Battle of New Alexandria alone wouldn't have lasted 5 days otherwise.

  • 02.06.2011 4:20 AM PDT

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

Posted by: Magna117
Posted by: privet caboose
Posted by: Magna117
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.


The battle for Reach was better depicted in First Strike. Half the book was devoted to Reach.

Reach's story fell flat on it's face because of Bungie's blatant ignorance to the rest of the pre-established canon.


I don't think Bungie were "ignorant". They simply didn't want to be tied down by someone else's story ideas. Someone else who wasn't even a Bungie staff member. I think that is very reasonable and understandable indeed.


Of course it's ignorant.

3 novels over the past 9 years were dedicated to telling the story of the battle of Reach, something that has been accepted as canon for 9 years because Nylund was given the Halo Story Bible to use as reference in order to keep his work in canonical bounds.

Put it this way, if Reach isn't following the novels then the game is totally wrong because it didn't adhere to the HSB. Therefore Bungie aren't sticking to the canon that they themselves made.

[Edited on 02.06.2011 4:31 AM PST]

  • 02.06.2011 4:26 AM PDT

If you can read this, that means I'm not a Shaolin monk...

yet.


Posted by: ajw34307
Posted by: Magna117
Posted by: privet caboose
Posted by: Magna117
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.


The battle for Reach was better depicted in First Strike. Half the book was devoted to Reach.

Reach's story fell flat on it's face because of Bungie's blatant ignorance to the rest of the pre-established canon.


I don't think Bungie were "ignorant". They simply didn't want to be tied down by someone else's story ideas. Someone else who wasn't even a Bungie staff member. I think that is very reasonable and understandable indeed.


Of course it's ignorant.

3 novels over the past 9 years were dedicated to telling the story of the battle of Reach, something that has been accepted as canon for 9 years because Nylund was given the Halo Story Bible to use as reference in order to keep his work in canonical bounds.

Put it this way, if Reach isn't following the novels then the game is totally wrong because it didn't adhere to the HSB. Therefore Bungie aren't sticking to the canon that they themselves made.

If only reach fanboys would learn this.

  • 02.06.2011 4:45 AM PDT

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


making a content comparison between two separate view points is a bit pointless, just be glad that Bungie respected the fall of reach enough no to remake it as it happened in the book, they told a different story, and so what if a few dates didn't match or the timings were not identical.

writing a book about a month long battle would have been boring, and fitting an entire game and back story into day would leave a lot of limitations

[Edited on 02.06.2011 5:32 AM PST]

  • 02.06.2011 5:31 AM PDT


Posted by: Tom Clarke
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


making a content comparison between two separate view points is a bit pointless, just be glad that Bungie respected the fall of reach enough no to remake it as it happened in the book, they told a different story, and so what if a few dates didn't match or the timings were not identical.

writing a book about a month long battle would have been boring, and fitting an entire game and back story into day would leave a lot of limitations

Posted by: Tom Clarke
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


making a content comparison between two separate view points is a bit pointless, just be glad that Bungie respected the fall of reach enough no to remake it as it happened in the book, they told a different story, and so what if a few dates didn't match or the timings were not identical.

writing a book about a month long battle would have been boring, and fitting an entire game and back story into day would leave a lot of limitations

The game could have taken place over several days, without needing to change the actuall Fall of Reach. Many of the levels already in the game could have happened without breaking canon, given a few tweaks.

[Edited on 02.06.2011 10:31 AM PST]

  • 02.06.2011 10:30 AM PDT


Posted by: Wazooty
Halo: Reach made reach seems like a defenseless worthless farming colony.


This!

Halo Reach's story was a horrible depiction of Reach's fall! Both sides seemed incompetent, Noble Team was generic and boring, the space battle was crap, Tip of the Spear was a turd, and the lack of Super MACs! Honestly, I could go on and on about why the campaign was BS! But I won't, because it's all been said before.

Reach was made for multiplayer, not Campaign, and that's a shame. The story is what got me into Halo in the first place. My only hope is that 343 can learn from Bungie's mistakes. And I think they already are.

  • 02.06.2011 10:42 AM PDT


Posted by: Beowolfe

Posted by: OrderedComa
I agree with you mostly, Op, though I'm more toward the middle of the road in regards to Reach, there are some things that still need to be settled, but the canon is not completely destroyed, only slightly bent. And I agree, the depiction of the Battle of Reach in Reach is way better than in TFoR, it does not make any sense at all for the Covenant to completely kick the collective asses of the UNSC Navy in a couple hours on their second strongest planet. It especially doesn't make sense in comparison to the accounts of the other battles with fairly even odds.

These points are not addressed to you Op, but rather to the opposition.
And Reach was hardly a "pitiful farmer colony" making such claims only makes you look like an idiot. If you are drawing your conclusions from the first and third level then the same conclusion from the same sort of evidence can be made about Earth. Actually we saw more of the defenses of Reach than we ever did of Earth, we saw a whole -blam!- CITY with buildings nearly the same size as the ones on Coruscant in Star Wars. Reach is most definitely not portrayed as a "pitiful, random farmer colony" in Reach.

You people claim that Reach does not portray the Spartans accurately, well the books have always contradicted the games, in the games Chief is never portrayed as he is in the books. He does not act like a robot to his authority, he is respectful and polite of course, but he is not snapping a salute every other second, nor is he stiff and without personality. Ok, so it's only Master Chief that conflicts, and seeing as how none of the other book characters have appeared we haven't seen Bungie's take on them, but without a doubt the book's portrayal of Master Chief is not accurate to his character at all. I don't see where you're getting the idea that Bungie is horrible at portraying their characters, other than pulling it out of your ass. I don't see anything conflicting at all between Bungie Spartans and book Spartans besides the Master Chief issue.

Opinions opinions.

Oh logic, where have you gone?


It would appear I have won the debate :P

But seriously, none of my arguments rely solely on opinion, I try to back them up with fact based from the games/books/any other canon relevant material or logic relying on said sources.

  • 02.06.2011 12:20 PM PDT