- Tookurdignity
- |
- Noble Member
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
-Omar Khayyám-
Posted by: Silver Sol Los
Posted by: I POWN U 666
Halo Reach is a bad game
1. Multiplayer took skill away from high ranks.
2. Campaign was ok but the characters were way to shallow.
3. It's graphics didnt feel like a halo I grew up on halo 2 (still the best with halo ce as runner up) the graphics just didnt feel right on reach i liked Halo ce, halo 2, halo 3, and halo 3 ODST graphics a lot more.
4. The only reason why i like it is because the company that brought me into gaming made it.
Halo 4 is going to be a -Blam-ing joke.
1.Bungie's Trueskill development stopped several methods of unfair gameplay;i.e Deranking. You also got paired up with smilarly skilled players,and unless you were having a brutally suckish day online,you usually end up with similar results at endgame.
2. Characters were too shallow? They weren't exactly meant to be happy-loving hippies. This was Reach,the key military planet of the UNSC's armada. Their characters were designed to be human,vunerable people. Not invincible super-soldiers like the MC. Sure,we didn't get much personalisation to like them,but it showed us that Spartan's aren't invincible. The only one who seemed Human to me was Jorge,the SII.
3. Graphics didn't feel like a Halo? The Bungie team could have easily used the Halo 3 engine and do nothing. But as I said before,this was Reach,a dark time for Humans in the Halo universe. The only way to show the loss and the beauty of Reach was the overhaul of the graphics,making things much darker and grittier than before,but still keeping it perfectly beautiful.
4. Just because the company made it,doesn't mean you have to buy it. Hell,I like Bioware for Dragon Age.But that doesn't mean I'm going to buy Mass Effect. You didn't have to buy Reach if you didn't want to.
The mantle of Halo has been left in very good hands. I can trust Frank O'Connor and the rest of 343i to make a brilliant trilogy for MC in Halo.
1) I agree with you there. I was pretty mad with Halo 3, albeit was a great game, but if you lost you got deranked. I was glad that Bungie helped rectified the deranking problem with Reach's multiplayer setup.
2)The characters weren't shallow at all. If you read the books you would realize that Ackerson had his Spartan-III's have a sort of pessimist view of reality. "They were made to die, as long as they completed their mission." Ackerson wanted soldiers who would follow his orders unquestionally even to the point of a sure death. The only "human" spartan was Jorge and that was because he was a Spartan-II.
3) I agree also. Bungie has stated that with Halo: Reach "from the beginning you know the end." They meant that you know Reach will fall to the Covenant, you know that most if not all spartans will die. Let's go out with a bang. That was their goal, in my opinion, that Bungie wanted to do with Reach. Send Halo out with a bang. Boy howdy did they send Halo out with a bang. Reach was designed from the get go to be the Halo everybody played FIRST. If you were new to the franchise and wanted to follow the story line, play Reach then CE, etc.
4)I also agree here. Bungie made the Halo Franchise, but to me it was just another great franchise they made. I was fan before Halo. Bungie made Pathways into Darkness and I LOVED that game. They followed it up with the Marathon Franchise and again, I LOVED it. Myth, I remember playing with my family and oni was pretty cool.
The thing is, Bungie keeps making better game franchise than their previous one. PiD was good, Marathon was better. Marathon was great, Myth was greater. Myth was pretty awesome, Oni(though incomplete) was the -blam!-. Oni was cool, Halo was cooler. If Bungie follows their pattern up to now, believe me they will, "Tiger" will be off the charts in terms of awesomeness. So, the only thing left is...Per Audacia Ad Astra