- An average gamer
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
Posted by: Confederateghad
Did I need to? You clearly missed the point. The point was that reach is bad and the only excuse all the halo fanboys can find without saying reach is bad, is that other games are taking most of the population. Halo 3 had tougher competition from more games and had a higher population after 3 years than Reach does now.
It's not a valid reason, it's just an excuse.
Reach is awful.
It is a very valid excuse. Halo 3 never had this tough of competition. It faced a new, unpolished CoD4, a new, unpolished Gears of War, and that's it. Halo, at the time, had been the only game to really do online right and have time to polish that further in Halo 3. It was the only good game at the time. By the time it was an older game, MW2 came out and took that away. People started flocking to it because it offered casual, easy, drop in, drop out gameplay. Other good online games started to establish themselves too such as Battlefield's Bad Company, and Gears 3 was in the making.
Now that Reach emerged, many developers had time to really figure out online gameplay. Between MW2, Black Ops, MW3, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Assassins Creed: Brotherhood/Revalations, Gears 3, and others I probably missed, there are tons of new games which all have good online play. Halo 3 never dealt with that many major titles and Halo 3 never dealt with the fact that the masses switched flavors away from competitive, difficult gameplay to uncompetitive casual gameplay.
If population means a game is bad/uncompetitive to you, then MW3/Black Ops must be the best, most competitive games in the world. If you seriously think either are, then you're a bigger idiot than you already look like.
[Edited on 12.03.2011 9:44 AM PST]