Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Bungie, you should have learned from Call of Duty
  • Subject: Bungie, you should have learned from Call of Duty
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Bungie, you should have learned from Call of Duty

-Reach is not Halo. A good game, yes, but not Halo. -Zomechin

Supercalifragilisticexpialidoc­ious - Spark

Whether you like the game or not, doesn't change the facts.

People love Call of Duty, that is why the game is so popular. People like the core gameplay of the game, that is why they don't change the game fundamentally, but only adding twists, and new features to keep the game more exciting(something Halo, 2 and 3 did)

Now what Bungie did with Reach is fairly controversial, if I may say so. Why change the fundamentals of a game that made Bungie so famous? Of course change should be made in order to keep the game new and fresh, but even something as simple as sprint is confirmed to completely alter the fundamentals of the game, why? If sprints changes the game that much, well what is AL supposed to then? Completely wreck the core gameplay?

What I am saying is that, Bungie(nor anybody else), should change the fundamentals of Halo, something we have loved for ten years with the same core gameplay, until Reach of course.

K.I.S.S

Keep It Simple, Stupid.

[Edited on 11.02.2011 11:34 PM PDT]

  • 11.02.2011 11:33 PM PDT

I like turtles.

One word, bloom. I dont agree that Bungie is even remotely stupid but, why bloom?

[Edited on 11.02.2011 11:48 PM PDT]

  • 11.02.2011 11:47 PM PDT

In memory of those fallen in the defense of Earth and her colonies.

March 3, 2553

Because for some reason during the period between Halo 3 and Reach Bungie decided to put their brains in the microwave.

  • 11.03.2011 12:06 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: FLASHDENMARK
Keep It Simple, Stupid.
I ain't stewpid you is stewpid.

  • 11.03.2011 12:07 AM PDT

-Reach is not Halo. A good game, yes, but not Halo. -Zomechin

Supercalifragilisticexpialidoc­ious - Spark


Posted by: DMR

Posted by: FLASHDENMARK
Keep It Simple, Stupid.
I ain't stewpid you is stewpid.

Irony, you has it.

  • 11.03.2011 12:37 AM PDT

If only..

  • 11.03.2011 12:54 AM PDT

Causing mischief from the shadows


Posted by: FLASHDENMARK
Whether you like the game or not, doesn't change the facts.

People love Call of Duty, that is why the game is so popular. People like the core gameplay of the game, that is why they don't change the game fundamentally, but only adding twists, and new features to keep the game more exciting(something Halo, 2 and 3 did)

Now what Bungie did with Reach is fairly controversial, if I may say so. Why change the fundamentals of a game that made Bungie so famous? Of course change should be made in order to keep the game new and fresh, but even something as simple as sprint is confirmed to completely alter the fundamentals of the game, why? If sprints changes the game that much, well what is AL supposed to then? Completely wreck the core gameplay?

What I am saying is that, Bungie(nor anybody else), should change the fundamentals of Halo, something we have loved for ten years with the same core gameplay, until Reach of course.

K.I.S.S

Keep It Simple, Stupid.


Let me point out your extremely flawed logic.

You're saying people shouldn't change a game too much because it will move it too far from what people are already familiar with.

Let's look at your own example, Call of Duty. C.O.D 3 had an established style, it had been going for years and had a good following. People knew what to expect from the style of C.O.D games and what the games played like. C.O.D 3 sold under 1.5 million copies. Then C.O.D 4 was developed and it introduced sweeping changes to the franchise, they added perks, levelling, unlocks and a lot of other features that drastically changed the nature of the game.

Now according to your logic, making this move will bring disaster to a franchise. According to your logic, altering the gameplay too much will ruin the fanbase. So what happened? By making revolutionary changes to the core, fundamental gameplay, C.O.D was able to become the biggest entertainment franchise in history.

So I hope you understand that change =/= damage or poor results. It's not that black and white. Change = risk. When people take risks like C.O.D did it can backfire or have tremdous results. I personally think Halo Reach is now in C.O.D's shadow cause Halo has kind of peaked. Eventually COD will peak too. It's natural. People like something new and fresh and innovative but eventually it will get stale and a new dominate franchise will emerge and have everyone's interest.

  • 11.03.2011 1:10 AM PDT

Stranded at the gas station of love using the self-service pump

Comparing COD to Halo is akin to comparing apples to oranges. Though they may both be FPS games/fruit, they are still different (and good) in their own way. One games' road to success is not necessarily the same for another, and likewise with failure. If you don't like Reach over COD or vice versa, that's fine, but there is nothing that says that a gamer cannot enjoy both games for what they have to offer. Only a fanboy would demand that a discerning gamer choose between titles as if it were casting a vote.

  • 11.03.2011 1:34 AM PDT

Stranded at the gas station of love using the self-service pump


Posted by: FLASHDENMARK
Whether you like the game or not, doesn't change the facts.



Also, calling your arguments "facts" does not make them facts. Next time, offer some actual facts before you make that claim.

  • 11.03.2011 1:36 AM PDT

-Reach is not Halo. A good game, yes, but not Halo. -Zomechin

Supercalifragilisticexpialidoc­ious - Spark

Posted by: Shadow Artiste

Posted by: FLASHDENMARK
Whether you like the game or not, doesn't change the facts.

People love Call of Duty, that is why the game is so popular. People like the core gameplay of the game, that is why they don't change the game fundamentally, but only adding twists, and new features to keep the game more exciting(something Halo, 2 and 3 did)

Now what Bungie did with Reach is fairly controversial, if I may say so. Why change the fundamentals of a game that made Bungie so famous? Of course change should be made in order to keep the game new and fresh, but even something as simple as sprint is confirmed to completely alter the fundamentals of the game, why? If sprints changes the game that much, well what is AL supposed to then? Completely wreck the core gameplay?

What I am saying is that, Bungie(nor anybody else), should change the fundamentals of Halo, something we have loved for ten years with the same core gameplay, until Reach of course.

K.I.S.S

Keep It Simple, Stupid.


Let me point out your extremely flawed logic.

You're saying people shouldn't change a game too much because it will move it too far from what people are already familiar with.

Let's look at your own example, Call of Duty. C.O.D 3 had an established style, it had been going for years and had a good following. People knew what to expect from the style of C.O.D games and what the games played like. C.O.D 3 sold under 1.5 million copies. Then C.O.D 4 was developed and it introduced sweeping changes to the franchise, they added perks, levelling, unlocks and a lot of other features that drastically changed the nature of the game.

Now according to your logic, making this move will bring disaster to a franchise. According to your logic, altering the gameplay too much will ruin the fanbase. So what happened? By making revolutionary changes to the core, fundamental gameplay, C.O.D was able to become the biggest entertainment franchise in history.

So I hope you understand that change =/= damage or poor results. It's not that black and white. Change = risk. When people take risks like C.O.D did it can backfire or have tremdous results. I personally think Halo Reach is now in C.O.D's shadow cause Halo has kind of peaked. Eventually COD will peak too. It's natural. People like something new and fresh and innovative but eventually it will get stale and a new dominate franchise will emerge and have everyone's interest.

I understand what you are saying, but Reach undoubtedly brought any revolutionary elements to the table, nor did it gain any from it. COD was back then not so success and added cool new features to spice the game up, and yes it did gain an extreme amount of popularity, but Halo has always been success full(since CE) and had always almost been the same(up to Reach) and look at Reach, I really doubt it helped the franchise more than it fractured it, and if (big)change(s) is to be implemented, they should not be implemented half-assed like in Reach.

  • 11.03.2011 2:28 AM PDT

-Reach is not Halo. A good game, yes, but not Halo. -Zomechin

Supercalifragilisticexpialidoc­ious - Spark


Posted by: Adm Hotpants

Posted by: FLASHDENMARK
Whether you like the game or not, doesn't change the facts.



Also, calling your arguments "facts" does not make them facts. Next time, offer some actual facts before you make that claim.


I did not state my opinion was fact, or that was not my intention, I meant it as fact that people love COD because of its "golden formula", and changing it dramatically(like Bungie did with Reach) would (most likely) really damage the franchise, because it had changed so much from what people expected and loved.

  • 11.03.2011 2:31 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Main GT, now permanently banned: DISORDERRRRRRRR
Before you gamestalk me, my H3 Exp is boosted because I'm not playing 5000 games again like I did on my main account for my 5 star. I AFKed and Grif boosted wtih supers0ak to get to Inheritor since I'm impatient when it comes to processional ranks. Nothing in Reach shows skill unless you play with the person anyways.
50:LW 50:TD 50:MLG 50:TS 50:TSW
My Youtube

Bloom isnt the only problem. It's the idea of AAs too. Sprint messed up Reach just as much as AL. Pretty much with any AA, gameplay becomes broken. As soon as I saw a spartan sprinting in a trailer for this terrible game, I knew it would be trash.

In someway, yes Bungie should have learned from CoD. Not by implementing all of that realistic crap when Halo shouldn't even be realistic, but by keeping the core gameplay, meaning player movement, gravity, jump height, and other characteristics staying the same, along with POSITIVE additions. It's too bad that everything Bungie has added was negative, except for the improved forge.

  • 11.03.2011 3:05 AM PDT

Still better than you.

.....most of you, at least.

Bungie was trying to learn from CoD.

That's why Reach plays so much like most CoD games: Rush up, get killed, rush up, get killed, rush again.

  • 11.03.2011 3:08 AM PDT

★ [J][A][S][O][N] [D][A][R][K] {X}{2} ★
The only stats I care about is what's on my report card and what's the $ on my pay check LOL :P

why so serious it's just game, it's meant to be played not to be debated against other games LOL. Don't like then don't play it simple as that.

  • 11.03.2011 3:19 AM PDT

People like CoD because of the incredibly and easy short kill times that rewards you with a cookie each time you do, which can be used to achieve more easier kills with that also reward more cookies.

  • 11.03.2011 3:28 AM PDT

-Reach is not Halo. A good game, yes, but not Halo. -Zomechin

Supercalifragilisticexpialidoc­ious - Spark


Posted by: Jason Dark x2
why so serious it's just game, it's meant to be played not to be debated against other games LOL. Don't like then don't play it simple as that.

I did not state whether I like the game or not. I remained somewhat neutral.

  • 11.03.2011 3:45 AM PDT
  • gamertag: MR E0S
  • user homepage:

Halo: Reach is the beginning of a new age for gaming.
It proves that developers can get away with punishing their players instead of fixing their game....and yet the fanboys will still sing praises to them.

-blam!- all of you fanboys!

And Here's where you're all stupid.

Bloom, Sprint, AL, Jetpack, Evade.

NONE OF THEM are the cause for Halo's stupidity.

It's the Lack of a proper means to fully customize the game to your specific needs.
It's the insistence on having a piss poor 'One Armed Bandit' as a matchmaking service.

If Custom Games was given the proper means to be at the forefront of multiplayer gaming. None of the "Core" Issues that you bring up, would even be an issue.

Then you combine the Slot Machine Matchmaking service with a quit ban... F.U.C.K. YOU BUNGIE!

Blah Blah..Make some friends.
Yeah.. make friends out of all the -blam!-s that insta boot you for any and every reason just because it gave them the option...

NO THANK YOU!

Remember back when Halo:CE was a CASUAL game, that was played competitively?
Now Halo is a Competitive game that is played Casually.

Halo:CE had no stats to track.
Yet those who had the means to play it online, played it to win it.
You don't need stats to be competitive. Only to brag about yourself on a stupid forum.
Oh, and only to use those numbers as some lame excuse to hold back the matchmaking service.
As in...

"No, I don't want join in progress! Because I'll take a chance at joining into a losing game every time I want to join a new lobby.. WAAAH!! I'm a -blam!- loser that cares to much about my W/L Ratio...cater the game to me"

In other words..
The competitive half of this community ruined Halo.

Get rid of the Win/loss part of it at least. So that you'll all shut the -blam!- up and Halo, might actually get a worthwile multiplayer service that isn't -blam!- everyone in the ass without the courtesy of a reach around.



------------------------------------------------------

If you think the Sprint AA ruins the game....shutup, You're an idiot.
Sprint, Evade, Bloom and ADS, should all eventaully have become integral parts of the Core of Halo.. no exceptions.

Which brings me to another point. Why does Halo still not have a proper ADS aiming system? I don't want to hear excuses about how it doesn't fit in with the "Core" experience of Halo.
That excuse is a load of BS.

ADS is nothing more than adding more realism in terms of how the user engages with the weapon. How could that posssibly not fit in a FPS of any kind?

I also wonder how many dumbasses would instantly throw up there arms spouting -blam!- about ripping off COD if Halo actually took the time to add ADS into the game? Probably all of you.





[Edited on 11.03.2011 4:59 AM PDT]

  • 11.03.2011 4:19 AM PDT

"We live in a special time; the only time where we can observationally verify that we live in a very special time" - Lawrence Krauss.

I was a finalist :P


Posted by: GLO Is Back
Most obvious example was leaving the legendary ending out ... the hallmark of all halo game, a cheap blow to true fans who believe in a halo secret.

Halo 2 didn't have a legendary ending...

[Edited on 11.03.2011 5:14 AM PDT]

  • 11.03.2011 5:11 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Nothing to see here citizen.


Posted by: FLASHDENMARK
Whether you like the game or not, doesn't change the facts.

People love Call of Duty, that is why the game is so popular. People like the core gameplay of the game, that is why they don't change the game fundamentally, but only adding twists, and new features to keep the game more exciting(something Halo, 2 and 3 did)

Now what Bungie did with Reach is fairly controversial, if I may say so. Why change the fundamentals of a game that made Bungie so famous? Of course change should be made in order to keep the game new and fresh, but even something as simple as sprint is confirmed to completely alter the fundamentals of the game, why? If sprints changes the game that much, well what is AL supposed to then? Completely wreck the core gameplay?

What I am saying is that, Bungie(nor anybody else), should change the fundamentals of Halo, something we have loved for ten years with the same core gameplay, until Reach of course.

K.I.S.S

Keep It Simple, Stupid.



Posted by: GLO Is Back
Easy ... bungie wanted to break reach.

Less people playing reach == more people looking for new game
== more people available to buy their next title
(if/when they EVER get it finished)

  • 11.03.2011 8:40 AM PDT

Planking : Parkour for people who don't move very fast.


Posted by: GLO Is Back
Simple answer ... bungie wanted to ruin reach.
bungie got butt hurt after microsoft booted them from the game, so they left the halo out of reach.


Microsoft bought Halo from Bungie waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before Reach. Like, around Halo 2, or so.

So, lolno.

  • 11.03.2011 9:19 AM PDT

It's the prestige that makes the illusion.

you must be the son of Jesus!
Finally someone post the thing that i'm saying since day one reach came out.
it's NOT halo anymore, it's a CoD game in Halo style.

previous Halo games: Fun, Amusing, no stress, community invented zombie mode, tons of Easter eggs, double exp weekend.

Halo Reach: Bungie's version of zombie mode ruined zombie mode, very stressful because of the abilities, NO fun allowed only serious gaming, Brutes became -blam!-, no customizable elite,
Legendary Difficulty was to easy, no double Exp weekends :s

Halo Reach GOOD stuff: Level up system and campaign

  • 11.03.2011 9:23 AM PDT

Posted by: Tom T
Prolonged exposure to this forum is bad for your health.


Posted by: aBIueBooksheIf
because I like pen­is.

source


Posted by: MR E0S

Raging as always.

  • 11.03.2011 9:40 AM PDT


Posted by: GLO Is Back
Simple answer ... bungie wanted to ruin reach.
bungie got butt hurt after microsoft booted them from the game, so they left the halo out of reach.


That's just ridiculous. Knowing that Reach was going to be their final Halo game, they would never willingly "ruin" it because that would 1) destroy their reputation as a game developer and 2) lose the loyalty of all the fans who are potential buyers of their next game.

Just because they implemented changes which some people don't like, that does not mean there is a deep, dark conspiracy.

  • 11.03.2011 9:52 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2