Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: A Comparative List of Why Halo: Reach is NOT Halo
  • Subject: A Comparative List of Why Halo: Reach is NOT Halo
Subject: A Comparative List of Why Halo: Reach is NOT Halo
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

No point in putting something funny, clever or informative here. Most probably im going to get perma-banned anyway.


Posted by: Azzwhoopen
You're wrong about Reach not being Halo. Can't believe I had to clarify that for your simple mind.

I've seen it over 100k every night for a week. Maybe you should pay closer attention.


LOL, you havent clarified anything. You have only gone on insane irrelevant ramblings.

  • 01.09.2012 11:17 PM PDT

Moron, Halo CE had Health and fall damage. You're obviously a 12 year old who hasn't played CE. But hey, 343i made a game just for you! It's called CEA so you can relive the great game, but it seems like you didn't.

[Edited on 01.09.2012 11:36 PM PST]

  • 01.09.2012 11:35 PM PDT

Okay so you're saying Halo Reach is not Halo..

It may be different, but it's still Halo so quite whining.

  • 01.09.2012 11:39 PM PDT

AHAHAHAHAHA OP has only played reach everyone. Get reported you nasty little troll.

  • 01.09.2012 11:45 PM PDT

Previous post from me: "I've actually played all the games and I understand I didn't get extremely specific with each damn game, I don't really care that much, but I also understand the progression of a game where they change 1 or 2 things, which what you're explaining and what every game does and what Halo did, but Halo: Reach changed them ALL."

I should have clarified though, I meant multiplayer gameplay. I don't care bout the campaign, I like competition.

On to your reply though...

Halo 3 is the only Halo to have these ''perks.'' So by your logic, Halo 3 is not Halo.

Like in my previous post, I understand the progression of a game with minor tweaks... this is one of them. In Halo 1 and 2 there weren't any, but at least in Halo 3 you're not given anything like in Reach. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Halo: CE, the first Halo, as well as Halo 3: ODST, had visible health. Halo 3 had health as well, except it wasn't shown as a bar.

Halo 1, the first Halo, might have had health, but again, one of the few minor tweaks in the progression of a game. As for ODST, irrelevant, I meant multiplayer. As for Halo 3, there wasn't enough health to show.

Halo: CE didn't have a ranking system. Halo 3 moved from trueskill from a simple 'win a game rank up.' So by your logic, NONE of the games except for Halo: CE are Halo.

Well let's think about this... Halo 1 didn't have a ranking system, which is fine since it's the first game so Halo 1 is irrelevant, but each game after that at least needed some skill to rank up. Halo: Reach takes NO skill to rank up. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Halo: CE had Fall damage. Halo 3: ODST had fall damage.

Halo 1 was the only one to have fall damage, but those maps were different, and at least you didn't get stunned. As for ODST, I'm still talking about multiplayer.

Halo: CE had the pistol. Soo essentially you mean to say neither Halo 2 nor Halo 3 are Halo. Or do you mean to say Halo: CE and Halo 3: ODST aren't Halo?

Halo 1 had the pistol, yes, no bloom. Again, progression of the game took it to the BR and kept the pistol. Soo essentially, you're wrong. Stop putting words in my mouth.

They've never been very rare. Especially with Halo 3's massive auto-assist.

Compared to over an average of over 50% (up to 90%) head shot to normal kill ratio in Reach, they were very rare.

Also, by the thread maker's logic? Halo 2 isn't Halo either. Nor is Halo 3. In fact, no game except for Halo: CE is Halo since they all had changes made to them of some kind.

Seriously. These threads are ridiculous folks. The thread maker is essentially claiming that any deviation from the previous title means the new title is not the same brand. It is asinine at best. Enough.


Wrong. Read all the replies before acting like you're the supreme Halo forum being. Stop putting words in my mouth. Again: "I understand the progression of a game where they change 1 or 2 things, which what you're explaining and what every game does and what Halo did, but Halo: Reach changed them ALL."

  • 01.09.2012 11:52 PM PDT


Posted by: Sonow Raevius
AHAHAHAHAHA OP has only played reach everyone. Get reported you nasty little troll.


... Wrong. Go away.

  • 01.09.2012 11:53 PM PDT


Posted by: Azzwhoopen
You guys are actually the minority. If Reach was so terrible, there wouldn't be a 100k people playing it every night. I realize that you come here to vent, but forum dwellers don't represent the Halo community. Just because you are the most vocal doesn't mean you are right. Go have conversations with people playing the game, you won't find many who dislike it.

  • 01.09.2012 11:55 PM PDT

Posted by: mojeda101
Moron, Halo CE had Health and fall damage. You're obviously a 12 year old who hasn't played CE. But hey, 343i made a game just for you! It's called CEA so you can relive the great game, but it seems like you didn't.


OHH NO! I was wrong about one little thing!! YOU GOT ME!! I must be wrong about everything RIGHT!?

Again: "I understand the progression of a game where they change 1 or 2 things, which what you're explaining and what every game does and what Halo did, but Halo: Reach changed them ALL."

  • 01.09.2012 11:56 PM PDT


Posted by: hellstorm5
Posted by: mojeda101
Moron, Halo CE had Health and fall damage. You're obviously a 12 year old who hasn't played CE. But hey, 343i made a game just for you! It's called CEA so you can relive the great game, but it seems like you didn't.


OHH NO! I was wrong about one little thing!! YOU GOT ME!! I must be wrong about everything RIGHT!?

Again: "I understand the progression of a game where they change 1 or 2 things, which what you're explaining and what every game does and what Halo did, but Halo: Reach changed them ALL."

  • 01.09.2012 11:58 PM PDT


Posted by: Quantam
Half the people here think classic is Halo 3.

Classic is Halo CE.

Halo CE had fall damage.

Not only does the OP ignore previous games which fall under this catergory, but also the fact the each Halo has been very different from the previous game, and everything after CE can be called not Halo.


Honestly, can you guys actually give a good reason as to why you do not like Reach?


OHH NO! I was wrong about one little thing!! That means I must be wrong about EVERYTHING right!? YOU GOT ME!

Again: "I understand the progression of a game where they change 1 or 2 things, which what you're explaining and what every game does and what Halo did, but Halo: Reach changed them ALL."

  • 01.09.2012 11:59 PM PDT

Remember its only a game.

I played and loved both halo 2 and halo 3. Both games had similar gameplay with only slight changes; such as additions of new weapons and vehicles, and the addition of power ups (camo and overshield in halo 3). These powerups however were not OP because you had to earn them on the map and you were not given them from the start. Both games had ranking systems which successfully separated skilled players from noobs and created a better playing environment. Halo reach however was a complete revamp of halo and in all honesty it is terrible. It enacted way too changes and pretty much resulted in a call of duty/halo hybrid.

I think it's funny that people are saying how still 100k are on reach to this day on a nightly basis. I have played recently and the numbers seem to be about half that. All I can day if Halo 4 ends up more like halo reach and less like halo 2 and 3 I am going to quit halo all together (and I really don't think I'll be alone). And if people say that I am a noob and have no idea what I am talking about I am a field marshall in reach so I have played it a little.

Oh and whoever thinks bloom and armor abilities were both good additions to reach...what are you smoking? In my opinion those things competely break the multiplayer gameplay. I know people say that bloom adds extra strategy but it really doesn't all it does in incorporate luck in a game that was supremely based on skill. And armor abilities are just dumb, and remind me of call of duty perks.

If you do not agree with this please post back. I really want to know how you defend against this.

  • 01.10.2012 12:02 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Heroic Member

http://www.bungie.net/fanclub/halohaven/Group/GroupHome.aspx

Join Halo Haven! (Group Leader: A 3 Legged Goat)

(To discuss Halo 4.)

OPs reply to the ownage post is ridiculous.

Half the time he states multi player, or it isn't relevant.

Guess what OP, it is relevant.

Halo CE was the first Halo game, and it makes anything new or different in the sequels not Halo. You cannot deny this, it is relevant, 1-50 is not Halo, the BR is not Halo, equipment is not Halo, SMG is not Halo, lol if taken literally even Earth is not Halo.

Only Halo is Halo, and that is CE, and/or Installation 04.

By the OPs logic.


Are you happy now OP? Your insignificant opinion backed by terrible argument is a joke.

Try to get a real reason to hate the game.

  • 01.10.2012 12:05 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Heroic Member

http://www.bungie.net/fanclub/halohaven/Group/GroupHome.aspx

Join Halo Haven! (Group Leader: A 3 Legged Goat)

(To discuss Halo 4.)


Posted by: Xbl Kenney
I played and loved both halo 2 and halo 3. Both games had similar gameplay with only slight changes; such as additions of new weapons and vehicles, and the addition of power ups (camo and overshield in halo 3). These powerups however were not OP because you had to earn them on the map and you were not given them from the start. Both games had ranking systems which successfully separated skilled players from noobs and created a better playing environment. Halo reach however was a complete revamp of halo and in all honesty it is terrible. It enacted way too changes and pretty much resulted in a call of duty/halo hybrid.

I think it's funny that people are saying how still 100k are on reach to this day on a nightly basis. I have played recently and the numbers seem to be about half that. All I can day if Halo 4 ends up more like halo reach and less like halo 2 and 3 I am going to quit halo all together (and I really don't think I'll be alone). And if people say that I am a noob and have no idea what I am talking about I am a field marshall in reach so I have played it a little.

Oh and whoever thinks bloom and armor abilities were both good additions to reach...what are you smoking? In my opinion those things competely break the multiplayer gameplay. I know people say that bloom adds extra strategy but it really doesn't all it does in incorporate luck in a game that was supremely based on skill. And armor abilities are just dumb, and remind me of call of duty perks.

If you do not agree with this please post back. I really want to know how you defend against this.


It is an opinion based argument.\

Bloom and AAs don't break Reach, they are part of the multiplayer, and they don't physically cause the disk to snap in half or crash the game, and therefore they don't break Reach.


I don't see why bloom is such a bad thing. The random argument is invalid because set aiming reticles are also random, in fact no weapon in any Halo game has been 100% accurate.

A lot of the additions, besides AAs, in Reach were similar to CE, OP grenades, single shot utility weapon, health, fall damage, slow movement and jump speeds.

Please tell me how that is not Halo.


I am not going to argue about AAs, and it will be a solely opinion based argument, no side can correctly claim victory.

  • 01.10.2012 12:09 AM PDT

ive been playing halo since CE lan partys and PC, halo 2 xbox, halo 3,and reach. and im glad reach is DIFFERENT compared to 2 or 3, they are both good but 3 was a re hash of 2 with minor differences and felt the same. im glad reach wasnt halo 3.5.
think how mw3 is is mw2.5 cause they changed little to nothing and its boring

  • 01.10.2012 12:14 AM PDT


Posted by: Quantam
OPs reply to the ownage post is ridiculous.

Half the time he states multi player, or it isn't relevant.

Guess what OP, it is relevant.

Halo CE was the first Halo game, and it makes anything new or different in the sequels not Halo. You cannot deny this, it is relevant, 1-50 is not Halo, the BR is not Halo, equipment is not Halo, SMG is not Halo, lol if taken literally even Earth is not Halo.

Only Halo is Halo, and that is CE, and/or Installation 04.

By the OPs logic.


Are you happy now OP? Your insignificant opinion backed by terrible argument is a joke.

Try to get a real reason to hate the game.


Wow, where do I begin? First of all, my terrible argument? You're not even stating an argument, you're just blabber mouthing. ODST's multiplayer WAS Halo 3 multiplayer so how is ODST relevant to what I'm talking about?

I guess I'll have to repeat this yet again... I understand the progression of a game where minor tweaks are added/taken away like what every single game does and what Halo did, but Halo: Reach changed them ALL. Read Kenney's post as a reference:

Kenney: "I played and loved both halo 2 and halo 3. Both games had similar gameplay with only slight changes; such as additions of new weapons and vehicles, and the addition of power ups (camo and overshield in halo 3). These powerups however were not OP because you had to earn them on the map and you were not given them from the start. Both games had ranking systems which successfully separated skilled players from noobs and created a better playing environment. Halo reach however was a complete revamp of halo and in all honesty it is terrible. It enacted way too changes and pretty much resulted in a call of duty/halo hybrid."

  • 01.10.2012 12:15 AM PDT


Posted by: hellstorm5

Posted by: Quantam
OPs reply to the ownage post is ridiculous.

Half the time he states multi player, or it isn't relevant.

Guess what OP, it is relevant.

Halo CE was the first Halo game, and it makes anything new or different in the sequels not Halo. You cannot deny this, it is relevant, 1-50 is not Halo, the BR is not Halo, equipment is not Halo, SMG is not Halo, lol if taken literally even Earth is not Halo.

Only Halo is Halo, and that is CE, and/or Installation 04.

By the OPs logic.


Are you happy now OP? Your insignificant opinion backed by terrible argument is a joke.

Try to get a real reason to hate the game.


Wow, where do I begin? First of all, my terrible argument? You're not even stating an argument, you're just blabber mouthing. ODST's multiplayer WAS Halo 3 multiplayer so how is ODST relevant to what I'm talking about?

I guess I'll have to repeat this yet again... I understand the progression of a game where minor tweaks are added/taken away like what every single game does and what Halo did, but Halo: Reach changed them ALL. Read Kenney's post as a reference:

Kenney: "I played and loved both halo 2 and halo 3. Both games had similar gameplay with only slight changes; such as additions of new weapons and vehicles, and the addition of power ups (camo and overshield in halo 3). These powerups however were not OP because you had to earn them on the map and you were not given them from the start. Both games had ranking systems which successfully separated skilled players from noobs and created a better playing environment. Halo reach however was a complete revamp of halo and in all honesty it is terrible. It enacted way too changes and pretty much resulted in a call of duty/halo hybrid."

the h3 and 2 ranking system allowed de rankers that screwed everything up...
and its called the arena in reach.... NEXT
btw how is a game adapting to something different bad? the only franchise that has stayed the same 100% is cod and it gets old VERY fast. was bored with mw3 and 2, and bo

  • 01.10.2012 12:19 AM PDT


Posted by: bashmeister2
ive been playing halo since CE lan partys and PC, halo 2 xbox, halo 3,and reach. and im glad reach is DIFFERENT compared to 2 or 3, they are both good but 3 was a re hash of 2 with minor differences and felt the same. im glad reach wasnt halo 3.5.
think how mw3 is is mw2.5 cause they changed little to nothing and its boring


I understand where you're coming from and I agree with MW2.5 (and thank you for a good and unbashing reply) but I don't understand how a game can just completely change. They didn't do minor tweaks to elevate from the previous game, they just straight up made it different in almost every way. It's like a company that makes cookies revamps themselves to make pizza.

  • 01.10.2012 12:21 AM PDT

"The truth is the key, and with it, I will unlock the doors of darkness and find justice."
-Me

"Why is it that lately, all I want to do is cry?"
-Phoenix Wright


Posted by: hellstorm5

Posted by: bashmeister2
ive been playing halo since CE lan partys and PC, halo 2 xbox, halo 3,and reach. and im glad reach is DIFFERENT compared to 2 or 3, they are both good but 3 was a re hash of 2 with minor differences and felt the same. im glad reach wasnt halo 3.5.
think how mw3 is is mw2.5 cause they changed little to nothing and its boring


I understand where you're coming from and I agree with MW2.5 (and thank you for a good and unbashing reply) but I don't understand how a game can just completely change. They didn't do minor tweaks to elevate from the previous game, they just straight up made it different in almost every way. It's like a company that makes cookies revamps themselves to make pizza.

I see no problem with that... So long as they make GOOD pizza...

  • 01.10.2012 12:25 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Heroic Member

http://www.bungie.net/fanclub/halohaven/Group/GroupHome.aspx

Join Halo Haven! (Group Leader: A 3 Legged Goat)

(To discuss Halo 4.)

OP, the point is that your opinion or any one else's over trivial matters does not make Halo Reach any less of a Halo game.

  • 01.10.2012 12:26 AM PDT


Posted by: bashmeister2

the h3 and 2 ranking system allowed de rankers that screwed everything up...
and its called the arena in reach.... NEXT
btw how is a game adapting to something different bad? the only franchise that has stayed the same 100% is cod and it gets old VERY fast. was bored with mw3 and 2, and bo


Well the arena was a good idea, but it's limited because of the playlists, how few players play it, and only really good players play it. Most people don't bother with it at all, so when they play the normal playlists, they rank up to a point where they can't handle themselves anymore.

I understand a game must change like everything else in life, but to take a huge leap and make it a completely different game?

Also, Gears has stayed the same for the most part also.

  • 01.10.2012 12:29 AM PDT


Posted by: hellstorm5

Posted by: bashmeister2
ive been playing halo since CE lan partys and PC, halo 2 xbox, halo 3,and reach. and im glad reach is DIFFERENT compared to 2 or 3, they are both good but 3 was a re hash of 2 with minor differences and felt the same. im glad reach wasnt halo 3.5.
think how mw3 is is mw2.5 cause they changed little to nothing and its boring


I understand where you're coming from and I agree with MW2.5 (and thank you for a good and unbashing reply) but I don't understand how a game can just completely change. They didn't do minor tweaks to elevate from the previous game, they just straight up made it different in almost every way. It's like a company that makes cookies revamps themselves to make pizza.

it didnt completly change, but there were some big changes, AAs are good and spice up gameplay vs standard shootout of prev halos. but adding health back and fall damage was a good thing, but i admit bloom could have been better (i play fine in both bloom and non). not sayin reach is perfect. games change, if none of the changes were made than everyone would be complaining about de rankers, and the same issued of prev games. change is good when its needed to keep a series fresh

  • 01.10.2012 12:29 AM PDT


Posted by: hellstorm5

Posted by: bashmeister2

the h3 and 2 ranking system allowed de rankers that screwed everything up...
and its called the arena in reach.... NEXT
btw how is a game adapting to something different bad? the only franchise that has stayed the same 100% is cod and it gets old VERY fast. was bored with mw3 and 2, and bo


Well the arena was a good idea, but it's limited because of the playlists, how few players play it, and only really good players play it. Most people don't bother with it at all, so when they play the normal playlists, they rank up to a point where they can't handle themselves anymore.

I understand a game must change like everything else in life, but to take a huge leap and make it a completely different game?

Also, Gears has stayed the same for the most part also.

gears 1 didnt have a number system it was trueskill i beleive. gears 2 started with numbers. the number system is easily exploitable with people glitching or cheating to 100 with no repections

  • 01.10.2012 12:31 AM PDT

Blah blah blah, I don't like change. That is all I got from this thread...


I can name 1000 reasons why StarCraft2 is not starcraft, but then I would be called an idiot and told that there is a reason it is called StarCraft TWO!!!


  • 01.10.2012 12:32 AM PDT

reach not being halo is still just an opinion, if it isn't then by your logic halo 2 isn't halo and since halo 2 isn't halo that makes halo 3 not halo as well.

  • 01.10.2012 12:33 AM PDT

Posted by: Quantam
OP, the point is that your opinion or any one else's over trivial matters does not make Halo Reach any less of a Halo game.


True, I guess at it's core it's a Halo game, but the layers around that core are very different. But I never said my opinion of the game or that it was bad, I was just stating the differences (or trying to) between the games. It's kinda like the evolution of man... Somehow we jumped from monkeys to humans... Where's the missing link between Halo 3 and Reach?

  • 01.10.2012 12:35 AM PDT