Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: How did the Halo fanbase treat Halo Reach?
  • Subject: How did the Halo fanbase treat Halo Reach?
Subject: How did the Halo fanbase treat Halo Reach?
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Halo Reach was probably the only Halo game that came out that DIDN'T have me looking through forums. I never really got to see what the halo fanbase really thought of it.

The popularity of Reach also helps me get a better understanding of what Halo 4 might be tuned to be like. Maybe more-so Reach or less-so Reach.

But basically, what did you guys think of Reach? Did you prefer it over the other Halo's or are you just playing it, waiting for the next Halo to come out?

Was it more widely accepted than Halo 3? I kinda thought Halo 3 was... bad... or at least a bit shallow.

  • 12.03.2011 11:01 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?

Reach is getting flak because it is a prequel based around The most important event in the war prior to the Covenant War and it conflicts with said event.

Not trying to stir up Another debate that ripped this forum in two and we truced about nearly a year ago; But overall it is a confusing mix of information that shouldn't have been re-introduced.

  • 12.03.2011 11:15 AM PDT

Vengeance only leads to an ongoing cycle of hatred.


Posted by: grey101
Reach is getting flak because it is a prequel based around The most important event in the war prior to the Covenant War and it conflicts with said event.

Not trying to stir up Another debate that ripped this forum in two and we truced about nearly a year ago; But overall it is a confusing mix of information that shouldn't have been re-introduced.

Basically this. Those who care about/enjoy Halo lore were split with Halo: Reach. Some people welcomed the new things that Bungie did with Reach and others (like myself) think the Reach campaign was a huge mistake. (Not trying to stir up a debate, so if you disagree with me just move along. Nothing to see here. >.>)

  • 12.03.2011 11:18 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I never really read too much into the lore, but I heard stories from some of my friends that actually read the Reach book. I heard the book could have made an epic game but it just wasn't presented well.

Idk... I honestly didn't care for the campaign in Reach at all. When people died I didn't feel emotion, when things happened I didn't really get into them, it was just an overall chore to complete the campaign.

But in terms of the multiplayer, I still kind of have the same opinion. The multiplayer was fun for a bit but for some reason I didn't like the changes they did. Removing duel wielding seemed LOGICAL, but still made me a little sad. Adding reticle bloom seemed fair at first, but overtime I realized I loved Halo cause I could feel like a bad *** when I played online, hijacking, duel wielding, solid aim, XD felt like a spartan...

But overall, this is where my opinions stand in terms of multiplayer...

Halo 2 > Halo Reach > Halo CE > Halo 3

  • 12.03.2011 11:32 AM PDT

i think halo reach was a awesome game and i think the amour ability's are really good and so are the load outs but you should be able to use sprint all the time but isn't a ability.If you agree reply.

  • 12.03.2011 12:08 PM PDT

you should be able to tern dual wield on and off in the options for individual weapons.

  • 12.03.2011 12:11 PM PDT

In my opinion I feel that some aspects of Reach were implemented for a variety of reasons

One was that they wanted to reach as big of a target audience as possible, and with recoil/sprint/some more features already having great success with the Call of Duty franchise, being heralded as an awesome game because THEY were the ones that made it "realistic" by adding in those features so that you weren't a one man killing machine; and while it worked really well for CoD and gained popularity within their fanbase, I personally feel that they should have stuck with Halo's outstanding formula for combat, after all it is Combat Evolved.

My other thought is that Reach occurred before John 117, so maybe it was implied that we weren't playing as his character during multiplayer/campaign/firefight (excluding Halo 3 ODST) and so we weren't playing as this ultimate killing machine anymore, instead as a Pre-John 117 Spartan, which may or may not have the onslaught of awesomeness to aim a gun perfectly steady while mowing down waves of Covenant forces

The changes were subtle, but they messed with the winning formula that Bungie had created that allowed such a epic and awesome franchise be successful for over a decade

  • 12.03.2011 1:07 PM PDT

Nice crispy bacon!

I for one really like Halo Reach. I think the changes made made the game a bit different, although perhaps there were a few things that should have remained the same.

I've played the multiplayer more on Reach than on any other Halo (except Halo CE) and personally love every aspect of it, bar the maps. The maps are pretty standard and nothing that makes you go "Wow, that's amazing!". However, I still found it addictive.

As for the campaign, well it was always a risky move and whilst I've played it a lot, I still felt there was something missing and that I was simply 'playing a game' rather than being part of the game.

Overall, I like Reach, but I hope Halo 4 goes back to the Halo CE/Halo 2 formula because they are simply superb.

  • 12.03.2011 1:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I agree, actually... I guess I can do with the changes like sprint and etc, but the one thing I don't like about sprint is that it ruins the flow of the typical Halo map.

Most Halo maps feel very unique and fun to play in, but with the ability to sprint, it kinda... idk... ruins the feel of the level. Since the levels are made for sprint and other abilities, you can pretty much run through a level in a matter of seconds.

It's hard to explain, actually, why I think sprint ruined the flow of the maps. Maybe it's because the maps are more open ended because of the sprint ability, or jet pack, etc... opposed to the other Halo games where they feel more like bases and didn't take 2 seconds to run through them.

  • 12.03.2011 2:06 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I guess they removed platforms and obstacles for the sake of allowing people to sprint for longer bursts.

Which makes sense, but... eh.

  • 12.03.2011 2:07 PM PDT

I was playing Reach solo for the campaign story background and updated engine.

Regarding the multiplayer I was more than happy with the new AA's however armour lock and overall speed was/is always a bad idea that should've been scrapped in the development phase.

I also an not a fan of evade but I do like sprint. I'd like to see sprint become a standard auto-refill meter for usage and AA loadout's on each spawn remain.

Halo must not go down the route of unlockable upgrades which imbalance the gameplay far too much for multiplayer. Loadouts was the right way to implement, giving players choice but not allowing dominance based on unlocks.

Now with CEA online the new maps and anniversary/classic settings I'm loving what 343i are doing with Halo so far. The terminals, audio and attention to details are right up there with Bungie of old.

Now if Halo 4 can ditch a bit of the cartoon feel and smooth out the AA's while keeping a kill/game speed balance somewhere between anniversary and classic setting we will really have something.

I'd like to see the netcode of Reach kept but allow more choice on maps/gametypes into the matchmaking filters. Right now it feels like you really don't have much choice due to the new random vote/veto system. That is unless you're always in a party with control of the majority vote.

Add a few enhancements like the possible equipment/weapons changing on the fly and it may be an interesting mix.

I would also like to see a little more return to solo play being beast like. Somewhere between Halo 3 and Reach but more so towards Halo 3 solo abilities to wipe out 2-3 guys on your own.

  • 12.04.2011 8:40 PM PDT

Acceptable and pretty addictive multiplayer.

Horrible, horrible campaign.

  • 12.04.2011 9:08 PM PDT

they treated it how any other player base treats change, poorly.

It didn't deserve nearly half the flak it got from the players, admittedly it over complicated the game a little bit with load outs and Armour abilities, but they did serve to spice up the game a little and perhaps differentiate it a little from halo 3.

the campaign was alright, pretty diverse and offered a decent gaming experience, a tad short but the same could be said of any modern game, and I think it was received pretty well by the original players.

however where it really fell down with the community (apart from AA and bloom which was no-where near that bad) was the story. while there was nothing wrong with the story on a fundamental level some people complained about noble team. they didn't like the idea of adding more Spartans to the mix and taking the spotlight away from MC, which is an integral part of the HALO universe. I for one welcome out new spartan overlords... that is to say they were alright, I liked noble 6, he did the same thing as MC by not talking too much and when he did he said something that player would like them to say. The idea of going back to reach was something the community wanted, but by doing it bungie opened themselves up to plot holes and criticism, it's the idea that by going back they ruined what players believed it was (which they did do to an extent)

so basically, the community got mad because the game changed too much for their liking, but if it hadn't changed people would have complained about the franchise stagnating in much the same way that people complain about modern warfare three essentially being modern warfare two with a slight update.

  • 12.04.2011 10:00 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Zereta
  • user homepage:

The lead up to Halo: Reach, I remember, was fantastic. This time two years ago, we were dissecting the VGA trailer, discussing how and why Spartan IIIs are involved and what's gonna be the big thing.

I believe this excitement persisted throughout the year till its release. And suddenly, everyone began searching for loopholes in the plot. Folks started hating the gameplay.

Mixed would be the best way to describe the situation.

  • 12.05.2011 12:29 AM PDT


Posted by: Sanjeev
The lead up to Halo: Reach, I remember, was fantastic.


Tom Morello...

Tom Morello everywhere.

Yeah, the run-up was brilliant, some of the most fun I've had on a forum as well as waiting for ODST. I remember after the VGA trailer arguing against the grain of majority opinion, saying that we were going to play as S3s based on the fact Jorge had said 'didn't think anyone survived Pegasi, sir.'

There was so much potential back then. But... well, it was a massive let-down.

  • 12.05.2011 1:47 AM PDT

Didact's Reprisal -
Now is the time of our unworlding
One final effort is all that remains
And I am not afraid
We shall fulfill our promise
We fight for the grace of the Mantle
And this time none of you will be left behind

As equally as they treated Halo 3 and 2, that much I know.

  • 12.05.2011 2:00 AM PDT