- Dropship dude
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
Gaming Rig Specs:
Coolermaster HAF X // XFX Pro 850W XXX PSU // Corsair 16GB Vengeance RAM (1600MHz) //
Corsair 120GB Force GT SSD // Western Digital Caviar Green 2TB HDD // Intel i7 3770k CPU //
MSI Z77A-GD65 Mainboard // MSI GTX 680 Twin Frozr III OC Edition Graphics Card -- Runs BF3 on ultra at anywhere from 60FPS to 130+FPS.
|| Average Joe ||
Posted by: SouthPoIe
Posted by: Dropship dude
Posted by: SouthPoIe
Posted by: Dropship dude
Being a Colonel in Halo 3 has absolutely no corrolation with performance in Reach.
Colonel=Bad
Bad=Bad Performance in Reach
watThe OP suggests that being higher than a Hero means that you're a Colonel in Halo 3. An odd and completely inaccurate link, as many players who are high levels in Reach are in fact Generals, or even any other rank, in Halo 3.
Additionally, not being a particularly good player in Halo 3 does not impact on Reach, as it plays in a very different style.
No, he's saying that the bad players who couldn't even become brigs play a -blam!- ton of Reach because it was basically made for them. Granted that is also another point which is made with the post, but I know a fair amount of people who were good at Halo 3, but weren't good at Reach. Or, who were good at Halo 3 and played a vast number of games in Reach. It's not possible to make a direct link based on mere speculation and the stereotyping of certain gamers, but I understand the point which is trying to be made. However, over a year after launch, I feel that making the same point for the umpteenth time is redundant. Hell, I never even come to the Reach forum any more because of threads like this.