- wizzie
- |
- Elder Legendary Member
Posted by: DARK4NGEL
Posted by: X SCC LEGACY X
i personally think reach is better. people that say its full of randomness and overpowered weapons are the people that play with just that, people that said theres no skill involved, well, obviously they cant shoot so they bash the game to make themselves feel better, halo 2 was fun but reach in my opinion is better, multi-player has way more options and now has fun playlists like action sack to keep you having fun if you dont feel like being competitive, and when people say reach is trying to be like cod, well their obviously retarded and cant tell the difference between 2 completely different things, like apples to monkeys, no relation whatsoever, just cus some new things were added that may remind you of something that you've seen before doesnt mean its copied, it means bungies thinking of newer things while you people sit at home on your ass bashing things. they were both good games and it should be left at that.
Not really. I play with top players and rarely lose on halo reach. The reason I think it takes barely any skill is that my school friends for one don't completely suck at it and the majority of the competitive community stopped playing due to the random outcomes.
Bungie didn't come up with new things. they ran out of ideas so just lifted things from other games.
They lost most of their idea makers on the series which is why the game is so stale and has much less people playing than that of halo 3.
His theory fails anyway. My friends and I all got multiple Onyx ranks for the first 3 seasons of Reach. We were also level 50's on Halo 3 and level 37's (legit) on Halo 2. Halo 2 takes far more skill than Reach, and the better players can see that just as much, if not more, than others. Saying that bad players dislike Reach is complete nonsense. It's the other way around!
[Edited on 05.18.2011 6:04 PM PDT]