Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: I really enjoyed the ViDoc, but the last part made me certain...
  • Subject: I really enjoyed the ViDoc, but the last part made me certain...
Subject: I really enjoyed the ViDoc, but the last part made me certain...
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: MrBojangles136
I like dick


Posted by: longhorn10
Posted by: ShieldyPoo
Halo 3 beat CoD4 in daily players
Halo 3 beat CoD WaW in daily players
Halo 3 pretty much tied Mw2 in daily players, even though it was 3 years old at this point

Reach has about 1/8th of the daily players that Black Ops has.

Reach failed miserably.


BREAKING NEWS: We are now measuring success solely on player counts!

Goodness, I hope the only time you ever touch my money is when you put it in a cash register. Value destroyer, IMO.


Yes because clearly the " amateur critic" view is better.

Screw the consumer's view...you know the one that matters.

  • 08.05.2011 5:14 PM PDT

Corn, Oil, and Wine... We need more wine...


Posted by: Silver Sol Los
Hell,I like Bioware for Dragon Age.But that doesn't mean I'm going to buy Mass Effect.


You're not going to buy Mass Effect? O.o You're missing out quite a bit...

  • 08.05.2011 5:18 PM PDT

Been a Bungie fan since the days of Myth TFL.

I too am glad they're moving on from Halo. They've told the core story and they've told it expertly. I'm sure 343 will do a good job keeping things interesting, but I can see Halo always being the "original trilogy" much the same way Star Wars is always going to be episodes 4-6.

As for Reach's faults... I've played to the rank of Noble and I honestly can't find any worth mentioning. To each their own, and certainly not denying the issues others have with the game. I wish people would state these things in less absolute terms... I love Reach. If Bungie won't acknowledge it, and I won't, then... maybe other opinions (gasp) actually exist!

  • 08.05.2011 5:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

The reason they were critical over halo 2 and not reach is because they had to cut a lot of what they wanted to do from Halo 2. While we may not like Reach as much, they were happy with it because they were able to do everything they wanted to do with it.

  • 08.05.2011 5:26 PM PDT


Posted by: Alec9224
The reason they were critical over halo 2 and not reach is because they had to cut a lot of what they wanted to do from Halo 2. While we may not like Reach as much, they were happy with it because they were able to do everything they wanted to do with it.

QFT...i liked Reach though, not as good as Halo CE or 2 but certainly an improvement over H3 imo.

  • 08.05.2011 5:42 PM PDT

I'm so happy Bungie is done with Halo. How could Reach have been any worse?? Halo 3 was pretty much perfect. In halo 3 the players had the most awesome and capable weapon ever, the battle rifle. The battle rifle defined halo, especially halo 3. I cannot count how many times I would get a perfect 7 shot on someone in halo 3. The feeling of shooting someone 7 times 10 feet away with a rifle fulfilled my every need in a video game. The next great improvement halo 3 had over halo 2 was the balance. No longer did I ever have to worry about using duel wielding. Spawning with an assault rifle against an opposing team of battle rifle wielding badasses was exhilarating. Bungie should have re-released halo 3 instead of releasing the unbalanced boring static Reach, I would have bought it.

Thanks bungie for providing me with some pretty ok games.

  • 08.05.2011 6:08 PM PDT

Corn, Oil, and Wine... We need more wine...


Posted by: my banana
I'm so happy Bungie is done with Halo. How could Reach have been any worse?? Halo 3 was pretty much perfect. In halo 3 the players had the most awesome and capable weapon ever, the battle rifle. The battle rifle defined halo, especially halo 3. I cannot count how many times I would get a perfect 7 shot on someone in halo 3. The feeling of shooting someone 7 times 10 feet away with a rifle fulfilled my every need in a video game. The next great improvement halo 3 had over halo 2 was the balance. No longer did I ever have to worry about using duel wielding. Spawning with an assault rifle against an opposing team of battle rifle wielding badasses was exhilarating. Bungie should have re-released halo 3 instead of releasing the unbalanced boring static Reach, I would have bought it.

Thanks bungie for providing me with some pretty ok games.


Uh huh... 7 Shot... Not sure if trolling or retarded.

  • 08.05.2011 6:11 PM PDT


Posted by: zash208

Posted by: my banana
I'm so happy Bungie is done with Halo. How could Reach have been any worse?? Halo 3 was pretty much perfect. In halo 3 the players had the most awesome and capable weapon ever, the battle rifle. The battle rifle defined halo, especially halo 3. I cannot count how many times I would get a perfect 7 shot on someone in halo 3. The feeling of shooting someone 7 times 10 feet away with a rifle fulfilled my every need in a video game. The next great improvement halo 3 had over halo 2 was the balance. No longer did I ever have to worry about using duel wielding. Spawning with an assault rifle against an opposing team of battle rifle wielding badasses was exhilarating. Bungie should have re-released halo 3 instead of releasing the unbalanced boring static Reach, I would have bought it.

Thanks bungie for providing me with some pretty ok games.


Uh huh... 7 Shot... Not sure if trolling or retarded.

That's not the only thing wrong with his post.

  • 08.05.2011 6:24 PM PDT

What angered me the most was when they went on about how great ODST was. That was the most boring, shortest and most obvious money grab I've ever played.

  • 08.05.2011 6:26 PM PDT

@accordingto343

Your one stop shop for all of 343's fabulous errors and ridiculous notions in the Halo lore.

Posted by: Gleebl
What angered me the most was when they went on about how great ODST was. That was the most boring, shortest and most obvious money grab I've ever played.

How exactly was it boring?

  • 08.05.2011 6:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

No.


Posted by: ev1l tr1t0n
...that it's a really good thing Bungie is no longer developing Halo games. Don't get me wrong, I love Bungie, I can't wait for their next game and on paper Reach is the ultimate Halo game. In practice, however, it is not.

I'm not going to delve into it since countless people have already beat the problems to death in the Reach and Optimatch forums, but these issues with several of the core elements of the game kept it from being the ultimate Halo game it was on paper. And... in the ViDoc, it seemed like Bungie completely ignored that. All they did was repeatedly praise Reach like it was a last sales pitch. No admission of failure, which seems odd considering the admission of failure with Halo 2 (which could hardly be called a failure).

It bothers me that Bungie is so blind to Reach's faults, so that's why I'm happy Bungie is no longer working on Halo. A fresh set of developers is exactly what Halo needed. Thank you, Bungie, for creating such an amazing universe that I have invested thousands of hours into, both in game and out and thank you for handing it off to a team of Halo fans.


A developmental failure and a critical failure are completely different.

  • 08.05.2011 6:50 PM PDT


Posted by: j7holdfastjack7
May i first applaud your calm, calculated, contextual criticism of Bungie's development of Reach.

Hear is the situation as i see it.

Halo 3 should have been the final Halo. MC's storyline was finished and locked in. One last offshoot with ODST, then cool.

But Reach really shouldnt exist. It doesnt fit. Bungie really wouldnt have made it in a perfect world. Just contractually obligated to make another triple A Halo title. So since they had too make it. They decided to make it new and itch those creative spots that have been begging to let loose. So it doesnt fit with the other Halo's because its the one that shouldnt be there.

Also Halo 4 has already ruined Halo for me just by the mere fact that it exists. Halo 3 finished it. I understand MS is a company that needs to make money, but its exploitation to stretch this franchise farther. There is just NO WHERE to go with Halo.
I compleatly agree, I also thought it funny how they practically said that they half @55ed ODST

  • 08.05.2011 6:50 PM PDT

Posted by: TN The Colony
Posted by: venix445
Posted by: Wv Hellbilly76
any ideas?

i heard... that its shishkas skull... bungie x-rayed his head and put that in as the oddball, they did so that they can put shishka in every oddball match to keep an eye on us to make sure we dont cheat remember this next time you go into oddball... shishkas watching...


PURE WIN!


Posted by: ev1l tr1t0n
...that it's a really good thing Bungie is no longer developing Halo games. Don't get me wrong, I love Bungie, I can't wait for their next game and on paper Reach is the ultimate Halo game. In practice, however, it is not.

I'm not going to delve into it since countless people have already beat the problems to death in the Reach and Optimatch forums, but these issues with several of the core elements of the game kept it from being the ultimate Halo game it was on paper. And... in the ViDoc, it seemed like Bungie completely ignored that. All they did was repeatedly praise Reach like it was a last sales pitch. No admission of failure, which seems odd considering the admission of failure with Halo 2 (which could hardly be called a failure).

It bothers me that Bungie is so blind to Reach's faults, so that's why I'm happy Bungie is no longer working on Halo. A fresh set of developers is exactly what Halo needed. Thank you, Bungie, for creating such an amazing universe that I have invested thousands of hours into, both in game and out and thank you for handing it off to a team of Halo fans.


Im sorry but all people like you seem to forget that bungie made a game that THEY wanted to make hence the praise they wouldn't of cared if they only sold 10 copies to them it was what it was meant to be people need to sstop bashing bungie and saying they are igorant about this

  • 08.05.2011 7:00 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

ItchyMyKarachi

I Strongly disagree with that statement, I personally loved reach. I believe they did an excellent job with the Halo games. I personally think they should have never stopped making the halo games. I cannot wait until the next Bungie game.

  • 08.05.2011 7:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Seven
Posted by: mistershag
I was glad they made Reach feel different. I was getting tired of the traditional Halo gameplay that 2 and 3 served me for a few years. Reach made the online play different enough to get me interested again. The best Halo game? Maybe. Probably not. The best that it could have been? I think so. Halo is past it's prime, and on it's way to the butcher. I feel there was no way in hell Reach could top the other games, but it was still hella funzies. I loved the addition of bloom. The other changes not so much.


Bloom was the worst addition.


Bloom was in all the other halo's so...

I think reach is amazing honestly the game is just alot of fun, from the amazing physics to the sick graphical detail, i think bungie hit this one on point. But as a diehard halo fan who has played all the halo's, the matchmaking is the worst in reach.

I dont understand why Bungie didnt add clans to reach or the 1-50 level system, honestly that would make the game 1000 x better and make the bame perfect.

I remember when i was in a clan in halo 2 with me and my brothers and friends and just going up and beating other teams and leveling up was so much fun and satisfaction. Also seeing the colorful levels as you leveled up was amazing and so satisfying.

In reach, there isnt much of an incentive to win, arena even if you win games big deal its just not that satisfying, espically if your a onyx your just gonna keep seeing the same boring symbol .

  • 08.05.2011 7:03 PM PDT


Posted by: chaflifi

Bloom was in all the other halo's so...


Since when?

  • 08.05.2011 7:07 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Vallad

Posted by: chaflifi

Bloom was in all the other halo's so...


Since when?

Bungie has always claimed that the physics of bloom were there in Halo 3 and the reticule just didn't move like it did in Reach.

  • 08.05.2011 7:13 PM PDT

Posted by: Textually Harass
Posted by: ShieldyPoo
U Mirin?

Why don't you do any work on your chest or legs or something? You look like a cartoon character.


Posted by: GeneralRafa

Posted by: ShieldyPoo
Posted by: IonicPaul
Posted by: ShieldyPoo
Halo Reach is by far the worst thing that has ever happened to Halo. Halo Reach killed the series and made CoD into the FPS powerhouse.

What an ignorant statement. Call of Duty 4 turned CoD into the "FPS powerhouse." Modern Warfare 2 broke all types of sales record because that's what the fickle "fans" want: Something easy to play with a feeling of customization (classes). You would say that Reach drove away the initial population of upwards of a million players via bad gameplay or whatever. The simpler, more logical conclusion is that people came to Reach expecting something new and different, but despite all the changes Bungie made to the core gameplay, it was still Halo. So the CoD fans dropped the game and went to Black Ops once it came out.

Call of Duty is the new "it" game. This was going to happen. Don't blame Halo's fade in popularity on Reach. It had already happened.

Halo 3 beat CoD4 in daily players
Halo 3 beat CoD WaW in daily players
Halo 3 pretty much tied Mw2 in daily players, even though it was 3 years old at this point

Reach has about 1/8th of the daily players that Black Ops has.

Reach failed miserably.

You decide whether or not a game fails by how many daily players it has? You will never play or meet more than half of those players, and unless some of those people are your friends, the amount of players online is completely irrelevant to your experience of the game.

There is a history of other great games in the past being big hits but never sold/retained players well due to bad marketing and competition.

You strike me as a person who would fall into peer pressure easily. It's not them who decides that Reach is a failure, it's your own viewpoint, your own perspective, and your own opinion that decides that. If it so happens that you agree with a lot of people who dislike the game, then that's great for you. Maybe you can all play the game you hate together.

Amount of players = popularity.

If no one is playing it, or not as many are playing it as there used to/should be, then the game is bad. People aren't playing it because it's bad.

Halo 3 had 250,000 people online at any given time all the way up until 2010. By January 2011 Halo Reach was already down to 150k at a time. Now I think it is at like 125k at a time.

Reach failed, fact.

lol @ you saying I'd fall for peer pressure because I called Reach a bad game. Guess what, I've played it. It's terrible, and it's not even Halo. They should have just called it Fall of Reach, or something dumb like that.

  • 08.05.2011 7:14 PM PDT

@accordingto343

Your one stop shop for all of 343's fabulous errors and ridiculous notions in the Halo lore.

Posted by: ShieldyPoo
lol @ you saying I'd fall for peer pressure because I called Reach a bad game. Guess what, I've played it. It's terrible, and it's not even Halo. They should have just called it Fall of Reach, or something dumb like that.


In terms of story it very much is Halo and that's all that matters.

  • 08.05.2011 7:15 PM PDT

If it tastes like toast, smells like toast. Wait, why are you smelling toast?

I think they just want Reach to be good so they are pretending it is. It is still a good game but it's just not on the same caliber as the other ones. There is a lot of content but that doesn't really matter because of the gameplay. Reach was really just a modern combat shooter set in the Halo universe, not a Halo game.

  • 08.05.2011 7:16 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

No.


Posted by: a flaming toast
I think they just want Reach to be good so they are pretending it is. It is still a good game


>_>

  • 08.05.2011 7:24 PM PDT

Yes Halo: Reach has its faults. But it is still a great game in my eyes. I love the multiplayer, while some may despise AA. I think the campaign was awesome, and forge was sweet. The only thing that made me ever a little bit disappointed with Reach was the fact that Active Camo doesn't work while you move. There should've been at least an option in custom games to make it stay full.

God bless Bungie, God bless Halo.

  • 08.05.2011 7:55 PM PDT

A MAN CHOOSES, A SLAVE OBEYS.

All the halos bungie made are amazing, but Reach is the best.

  • 08.05.2011 8:11 PM PDT


Posted by: OniLink147
I agree with what Bungie was saying about Reach...

But honestly if you're going to talk about population there wasn't much competition with 2 or 3. Halo 2 I can't think of any. Halo 3 only had to worry about CoD 4 and Gears of War. Reach has to deal with CoD still plus the fact that every single game has an online multiplayer now. If Bungie just made it Halo 3.5 then it most likely wouldn't have as many players as Reach does now. They needed to change or add something to keep the series from stagnating.


This is truth

[Edited on 08.05.2011 8:25 PM PDT]

  • 08.05.2011 8:25 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

No.


Posted by: ShieldyPoo

Amount of players = popularity.


That doesn't take into account the types of players. The self righteous jerkwads who are more inclined to a simpler "just kill em" game is going to be attracted to the selfish gameplay stylings of black ops. Most of the people that played Halo 3 just happened to be certifiably retarded, and Halo 3 just happened to support that game style as well. When they all switched to COD, I was as happy as can be. No more selfish -blam!-s hopping around the map, no more headphones being blasted out by some just barley post-pubescent dude who just got a double kill. It's all gone. And I'm glad.

The supportive nature of the Armor Abilities scared them off. Their little ADD minds couldn't handle waiting for the retical bloom to reset. All that Rockstar and Monster made them crazy for more jumping around in circles and the jump height was lowered. The thing is Halo took it's Unreal/ Battlefield playstyle with a Starship Troopers twist, and it turned the Unreal down. It became more calm, and therefore attracted calmer and more cerebral players.

I'm sorry dude, but those few remaining people that are playing Reach instead of COD are playing Reach because it's got a supportive team based playstile, and they're team players. The COD players play COD because of it's one-man-army BS that Halo got rid of with Reach, and they're wannabee one-man-armies. We should be happy they get to live out their fantasies somehow.

The people left playing Reach are just the better people. Better to play with. Good team mates who play for the game and not the number you get afterwards. I've noticed that when Reach came out, all the idiots that were boasting their Halo 3 stats were the ones complaining about the new features in reach. Figures.

Again, good riddance.

[Edited on 08.05.2011 8:29 PM PDT]

  • 08.05.2011 8:26 PM PDT