Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why halo reach wasn't as successful.
  • Subject: Why halo reach wasn't as successful.
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Why halo reach wasn't as successful.

I DO have time to bleed...i just dont want to.


Posted by: House of Pain
Posted by: GOLDENSKULL95
if any of you guys knew how much work went into these games you wouldnt be saying they are bad.

Did I ask?

did you ask what??

  • 11.21.2011 7:11 AM PDT

I DO have time to bleed...i just dont want to.


Posted by: ii_R3C0Nz_ii
Posted by: GOLDENSKULL95
dont get me wrong i like reach quite alot but the thing i think thats wrong with it is i thing they tryed to make it too realistic. i meen halo games is about jumping from grate hights and being unharmed and the old shoot/melee combo(bleed through sheald/health) i like armour abilitys in reach but i hope no other halo games will have them in the future.

I don't mind the Armour abilities in Reach, but some of them can be quite over-used. Mostly Jet packs and Armor Lock. Then again, If you know how to properly use It, then you wouldn't have a problem with It. Why is Sprint even a power ability? They should just have Sprint ALREADY as a default power ability.

they didnt put sprint as a default ability because it would be way over powered, imagine sprint+evade and it would be to simmilar to cod that way and the armour abilitys are actualy an injector on the spartan/elites back that distributes a drug to eg override the suits movment capabilitys and make the spartan run faster or make them more flexible so they are able to roll ect.

  • 11.21.2011 7:22 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Horse Repairman
RC RuNz the internet. Like the superintendent.

Posted by: SouthPoIe
Clone is an internet God.

Posted by: DerpRoids
RC Clone is the anti-thesis of a lurker.

Because it didn't play like a Halo game?

  • 11.21.2011 7:25 AM PDT

Maybe it's what it didn't have that made people avoid it like a ranking system. In H2 and 3 everyone wanted a 50 even if it meant buying one and that kind of ranking system made it very popular so in Reach when it was taken away people didn't like it and stayed away, I don't know if that's actually what happened but it is possible.

Other Halo games didn't have AA's, even the smallest things can ruin it for someone. I am sure when people saw armor lock for the first time they turned off the game and returned it. Also the maps aren't as good as the previous games. I love Reach but these things that I mentioned are good reasons why the multiplayer is not as popular as Halo 3.

  • 11.21.2011 7:36 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Member
  • gamertag: Fubsy
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Confederateghad
Posted by: SilentAssazzin
Posted by: Milosensei
Posted by: SilentAssazzin
The community is never happy

Ergo...?

Yeah im saying I agree with you. Why can't the community stop complaining about what they want

No, Reach is just a legitimately BAD game. How do you explain its online population being lower than Halo 3's after H3 was out for 3 years?

Is it because reach is just so amazing? No, it's because it's terrible.




You're mind-blowingly dense.

Reach is not a "bad" game. Its just not as good as the other Halo games in your opinion, and the opinion of many others. You want a "bad" game? Play Duke Nukem Forever. Play Turning Point: The Fall of Liberty.

Reach isn't bad. Its just bad in comparison to other Halo games.

  • 11.21.2011 7:43 AM PDT

Happiness is a warm gun

Reach failed in 2 respects IMO.

First of all, it didn't resonate with the collective consciousness. People/Casuals nowadays require constant progession/rewards. They want unlocks that translate into truly beneficial gameplay perks. Ergo, the Call of duty/Battle field system. Where you constantly have a carrot dangled in front of you, for that new weapon, perk, attachment or whatever. It keeps players experiementing and yearning for more, which Reach doesn't have.

Secondly, is to go for 'Every player starts equal' System, and the only true progression is through the 'Skill based Ranking system' Ergo, Previous Halos or Starcraft. Reach lacks this, and while it does have Arena, that proved to be un-rewarding as you have to play at least 20 matches just to see your progression, which obviously fails on the per match progression that THE MAJORITY of people yearn for.

Reach tried to mix the 2 of these things, but didn't encorporate the addictive benefits of either. Sure we have constant progression, but it's for useless Armor and Credit based ranks. Sure Theres a skill system, but it takes too many matches to even see a result.

That's not to mention the complete loss of sandbox items, player movement, tricks and skill jumps that reach eliminated. As well as loadouts warping the whole 'Every player starts equal' philosophy

  • 11.21.2011 8:02 AM PDT

Reach failed mostly because other, more popular games were around.

While Reach did add a lot of new aspects to its game which were undesireable, there was also insane customization. There could have been plenty of maps built and armor ability-less customs run if they were hated so much. MLG's population/Team Classic's population would have skyrocketed if it were just the armor abilities people didn't like.

Fact is, people moved on to other games, specifically Call of Duty. It's fast paced, easy to play, and you can quit over and over with no penalty until you finally destroy well enough to get your big killstreak and feel amazing. People want to play games where they can easily feel good enough to talk trash and Reach makes that too hard.

That's why Halo 3 started losing out to CoD late in its life and that's why the series never recovered. Even Halo 4 won't save it from this fate unless people finally tire of CoD.

  • 11.21.2011 8:02 AM PDT

Shoryuken!

Mythic Mode Progress on Reach:
Winter Contingency, perfection.
Other levels in progress.

One man's trash, is another man's treasure.

Reach is trash to some if not most of us, but it's valued by others such as the new generation of players.

  • 11.21.2011 9:51 AM PDT

Arby n The Chief - THER CANZ BE NLY 1


Posted by: Fubsy
Posted by: Confederateghad
Posted by: SilentAssazzin
Posted by: Milosensei
Posted by: SilentAssazzin
The community is never happy

Ergo...?

Yeah im saying I agree with you. Why can't the community stop complaining about what they want

No, Reach is just a legitimately BAD game. How do you explain its online population being lower than Halo 3's after H3 was out for 3 years?

Is it because reach is just so amazing? No, it's because it's terrible.




You're mind-blowingly dense.

Reach is not a "bad" game. Its just not as good as the other Halo games in your opinion, and the opinion of many others. You want a "bad" game? Play Duke Nukem Forever. Play Turning Point: The Fall of Liberty.

Reach isn't bad. Its just bad in comparison to other Halo games.

The community makes this game suck at times, playing the same map the same way eveytime ie Swordbase. Regarding Halo 3 population that didn't have 22.5 C.O.D games to fight of, everyone has a different opinion on all games like them or hate them we can never all agree on the same thing.

  • 11.21.2011 11:52 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Mythic Member
  • gamertag: P3P5I
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Achronos
It isn't our shiznit anymore.

Posted by: Confederateghad
No, Reach is just a legitimately BAD game. How do you explain its online population being lower than Halo 3's after H3 was out for 3 years?

Is it because reach is just so amazing? No, it's because it's terrible.
Was Reach's population decline a result of its different game mechanics, the increased competition among other games currently on the market, or did the series finally reach its natural end (or was it something else)? Was it a combination of factors?

To say that one of these factors dominated the others to the extent that Reach was a "bad" game would be drawing a conclusion with no evidence. Come on Reach forum, use science!

[Edited on 11.22.2011 3:35 AM PST]

  • 11.22.2011 3:34 AM PDT

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

March 3, 2553

Baha. When did the community ever cry about. Halo 3 isfor noobs! We need something completely different to Halo!

No. Bungie made the game to try and appeal to everybody to make a huge profit. The fans and game werent thought of in the making of this game IMP

  • 11.22.2011 3:36 AM PDT

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

March 3, 2553


Posted by: P3P5I
Posted by: Confederateghad
No, Reach is just a legitimately BAD game. How do you explain its online population being lower than Halo 3's after H3 was out for 3 years?

Is it because reach is just so amazing? No, it's because it's terrible.
Was Reach's population decline a result of its different game mechanics, the increased competition among other games currently on the market, or did the series finally reach its natural end (or was it something else)? Was it a combination of factors?

To say that one of these factors dominated the others to the extent that Reach was a "bad" game would be drawing a conclusion with no evidence. Come on Reach forum, use science!


The series met its end because Reach, simply was thought of and created. I doubt large populations in future games ofHalo after this crap. Reach drove away ALOT of people. Thanks Bungie!

  • 11.22.2011 3:38 AM PDT

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

March 3, 2553


Posted by: GLO Is Back
Posted by: Duncan Macleod
Regarding Halo 3 population that didn't have 22.5 C.O.D games to fight of, everyone has a different opinion on all games like them or hate them we can never all agree on the same thing.


"fight of" ... think you mean "off"?

And then "have 22.5 C.O.D games" ... failed math as well I see - lol.


Halo 3 had plenty of huge titles to fight off in its release.
CoD 4
Battlefield
Forza
Gears

Just to name a few. Reach has less competition. One game caused its downfall. Blind fanboys are blind.

  • 11.22.2011 3:41 AM PDT


Posted by: Confederateghad
Posted by: SilentAssazzin
Posted by: Milosensei
Posted by: SilentAssazzin
The community is never happy

Ergo...?

Yeah im saying I agree with you. Why can't the community stop complaining about what they want

No, Reach is just a legitimately BAD game. How do you explain its online population being lower than Halo 3's after H3 was out for 3 years?

Is it because reach is just so amazing? No, it's because it's terrible.

No, they hate it cause Bungie listened to people.

  • 11.22.2011 3:59 AM PDT

I DO have time to bleed...i just dont want to.


Posted by: An average gamer
Reach failed mostly because other, more popular games were around.

While Reach did add a lot of new aspects to its game which were undesireable, there was also insane customization. There could have been plenty of maps built and armor ability-less customs run if they were hated so much. MLG's population/Team Classic's population would have skyrocketed if it were just the armor abilities people didn't like.

Fact is, people moved on to other games, specifically Call of Duty. It's fast paced, easy to play, and you can quit over and over with no penalty until you finally destroy well enough to get your big killstreak and feel amazing. People want to play games where they can easily feel good enough to talk trash and Reach makes that too hard.

That's why Halo 3 started losing out to CoD late in its life and that's why the series never recovered. Even Halo 4 won't save it from this fate unless people finally tire of CoD.

i think halo 3 is being reborn as we speak, i meen i was on it a cople of dayse ago and there was 18k online and cod only has so much layers because most of them are little kids that cant take a challenge like halo multiplayer and there usual responce is "wtf i just shot him 1 million times and he didnt die!!" because there used to firing 1 bullet at any part of another players body and getting an instant kill so they whine and moan.

  • 11.22.2011 7:22 AM PDT

I DO have time to bleed...i just dont want to.


Posted by: Bartybum

Posted by: Confederateghad
Posted by: SilentAssazzin
Posted by: Milosensei
Posted by: SilentAssazzin
The community is never happy

Ergo...?

Yeah im saying I agree with you. Why can't the community stop complaining about what they want

No, Reach is just a legitimately BAD game. How do you explain its online population being lower than Halo 3's after H3 was out for 3 years?

Is it because reach is just so amazing? No, it's because it's terrible.

No, they hate it cause Bungie listened to people.

they listend to the wrong people. i suspect that this was sabbotage, i think all the cod fanboys came to b.net and asked for all this stuff on reach...

  • 11.22.2011 7:24 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Member
  • gamertag: Fubsy
  • user homepage:

Halo 3's competition isn't even CLOSE to Reach's.

Gears was seen as a game to hold people over until Halo 3. It wasn't as insanely popular as it is now.

Battlefield? Are you talking about Battlefield 2? or Bad Company? neither of which were NEARLY as popular as Battlefield 3 on consoles.

Call of Duty hadn't become the sales/cultural juggernaut that it is today. Nothing even omes close to its popularity today. To say that COD THEN is as big a threat as CoD NOW is absolutely ridiculous.

And well...to argue that Forza is direct competition is silly.


So to summarize, with just the three examples you gave.

Gears 3 is a bigger threat than Gears 11
Cod 5,6,7,8 are all bigger threats than CoD 3 or 4
Battlefield 3 is a bigger threat than 2 or BC.

  • 12.05.2011 10:45 AM PDT

Lol

Jesus Christ... this has been beaten to death. Enough of these Halo is dying or how Reach failed threads. The simple truth is that Halo is becoming old and thus the popularity of the game is fading. There is nothing wrong with people moving on to different games. Reach failed because Halo is no longer the only game on consoles that has an effective matchmaking system.

That's the only reason why Halo 2 was so popular, because it was the only console game online that was easy to play, could communicate with friends, and create a wide variety of custom games. Other games have risen that gives players more options. Deal with it.

  • 12.05.2011 10:50 AM PDT

Lol


Posted by: NinjaLord77
Maybe it's what it didn't have that made people avoid it like a ranking system. In H2 and 3 everyone wanted a 50 even if it meant buying one and that kind of ranking system made it very popular so in Reach when it was taken away people didn't like it and stayed away, I don't know if that's actually what happened but it is possible.

Other Halo games didn't have AA's, even the smallest things can ruin it for someone. I am sure when people saw armor lock for the first time they turned off the game and returned it. Also the maps aren't as good as the previous games. I love Reach but these things that I mentioned are good reasons why the multiplayer is not as popular as Halo 3.


If people honestly got that mad over armor lock, then they shouldn't be playing games in the first place to be honest. I would hate to see anyone who hates random things occurring that much work a real job.

  • 12.05.2011 10:58 AM PDT

The reason this game wasn't successful was because the batel rifel sucked and armor lock should have lasted longar.

  • 12.05.2011 11:49 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2