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

And so God called Moses to come forth but he came fifth and was therefore disqualified.

100th reply.

  • 01.10.2012 1:24 PM PDT

Posted by: Recon Number 54
Life is a journey, if you spend all of it with your nose in your map, you may miss some of the best parts.


Posted by: xmat123x

Posted by: SpiLLing OveR
Okay so you're saying Halo Reach is not Halo..

It may be different, but it's still Halo so quite whining.
Same as saying Halo Wars is a Halo game.


Or same as saying Mario Bros. 2 was a Mario game. Same with Contra Force as a Contra game.

  • 01.10.2012 1:31 PM PDT

Remember its only a game.


Posted by: burritosenior
How is this thread still alive when every point in the first post I proved idiotic?


Because obviously you thought you were more important than you actually are.

And most people (like myself) do not like reading nerd rants.

Those are possible explanations for your concern.

  • 01.10.2012 1:52 PM PDT

Halo Reach was sort of fun at the beginning (because of the inhanced Forge mode), but now it has just become a toddler's version of Call of Duty(not that I'm supporting COD. Frankly, buying COD games nowadays are a huge waste of time, and I believe infinity ward is just trying to "milk" the franchise dry.)
What really distinguished halo(Halo 3 specificaly) from Call of Duty is that;

1. Everyone started the game the same, no matter what their rank.

2. Halo(3) Required skill, unlike Call of Duty which can be dominated by 12 year olds.

3. Halos 1,2 and 3 all had an amazing story, where Call of Duty is cheesy historical fiction that can't even keep me entertained for an hour.

4. Nothing was really overpowered(other than the tank, but refer to my next point ->), so it was no one's fault but your own if you were being dominated.

5. Halos 1,2 and 3 had a massively addicting multiplayer that I have never and will never get bored of.

6. Forge, nuff said.

7. What also made Halo(more specificaly Halo 3) so awesome is that almost every game(more frequently in big team battle) something amazing would happen that you wouldn't even have thought possible. For example I've found a thing on Sandtrap that glitches a Warthog and launches it, and I've killed somebody with it. Twice.
As annoying as it was, I even found the "cone" kills especially amazing and awesome.

In Conclusion, I'd just like reiterate my first point by once again stating: Reach had none of these 7(Bungie's number, coincidence? I think not!) awesome things(besides Forge, which was pretty awesome.), which is resulting in what I like to call; "The Call of Duty Collapse", meaning Halo is on a downward spiral. Bungie has attempted to created a game closer to a Call of Duty feel, therefore eliminating the fun factor.

In my opinion, Halo 4 is going to go 1 of 2 ways;

1. The game mechanics will be similar to older Halos(preferably Halo 3), along with an innovative and gripping campaign that can and will be played 10 times in a row(such as halo 1,2 and 3), without getting boring. This will revive the franchise, and bring back the fun factor.

2. Will have the same mechanics and boring campaign style as Reach. Most fans(such as myself) will finally give up on 343 Industries, seeing as they just want to milk this franchise dry.

You are all entitled to your own opinion(as am I), but I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. I look forward to reading the ingenius replies of the 13 year old fanboys. As for you, burritosenior, I very much look forward to yours, as you seem very intellectual.

Good day.

  • 01.10.2012 1:59 PM PDT

Remember its only a game.


Posted by: hamsta cam
Halo Reach was sort of fun at the beginning (because of the inhanced Forge mode), but now it has just become a toddler's version of Call of Duty(not that I'm supporting COD. Frankly, buying COD games nowadays are a huge waste of time, and I believe infinity ward is just trying to "milk" the franchise dry.)
What really distinguished halo(Halo 3 specificaly) from Call of Duty is that;

1. Everyone started the game the same, no matter what their rank.

2. Halo(3) Required skill, unlike Call of Duty which can be dominated by 12 year olds.

3. Halos 1,2 and 3 all had an amazing story, where Call of Duty is cheesy historical fiction that can't even keep me entertained for an hour.

4. Nothing was really overpowered(other than the tank, but refer to my next point ->), so it was no one's fault but your own if you were being dominated.

5. Halos 1,2 and 3 had a massively addicting multiplayer that I have never and will never get bored of.

6. Forge, nuff said.

7. What also made Halo(more specificaly Halo 3) so awesome is that almost every game(more frequently in big team battle) something amazing would happen that you wouldn't even have thought possible. For example I've found a thing on Sandtrap that glitches a Warthog and launches it, and I've killed somebody with it. Twice.
As annoying as it was, I even found the "cone" kills especially amazing and awesome.

In Conclusion, I'd just like reiterate my first point by once again stating: Reach had none of these 7(Bungie's number, coincidence? I think not!) awesome things(besides Forge, which was pretty awesome.), which is resulting in what I like to call; "The Call of Duty Collapse", meaning Halo is on a downward spiral. Bungie has attempted to created a game closer to a Call of Duty feel, therefore eliminating the fun factor.

In my opinion, Halo 4 is going to go 1 of 2 ways;

1. The game mechanics will be similar to older Halos(preferably Halo 3), along with an innovative and gripping campaign that can and will be played 10 times in a row(such as halo 1,2 and 3), without getting boring. This will revive the franchise, and bring back the fun factor.

2. Will have the same mechanics and boring campaign style as Reach. Most fans(such as myself) will finally give up on 343 Industries, seeing as they just want to milk this franchise dry.

You are all entitled to your own opinion(as am I), but I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. I look forward to reading the ingenius replies of the 13 year old fanboys. As for you, burritosenior, I very much look forward to yours, as you seem very intellectual.

Good day.



First of all, good post.

I competely agree with your COD/Halo comparison and how Reach is a COD/Halo hydrid which isnt any fun. Everything you said about Halo 3 I agree with 100 percent.

Honestly, to this day I would rather play COD over Halo Reach because Reach was that much of a disappointment to me. However Halo 2 and 3 were not on the same level as any COD game (as Halo 2 and 3 were so much better).

  • 01.10.2012 2:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

*wonders how New Clan Recruitment For Shadow Pack thread gets 55 replies*

*reads "Hi I'm Ashley. . ." *

[Question Answered]

*proceeds to read on, shakes head, and gently laughs*

Should rename to the "Difference Between Halo 2/3 Multiplayer & Halo Reach Multiplayer".

  • 01.10.2012 2:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Halo 1 only had shields?

  • 01.10.2012 2:22 PM PDT


Posted by: Sgt Commando
Should rename to the "Difference Between Halo 2/3 Multiplayer & Halo Reach Multiplayer".


Yes, I should have done that. If I did, I would have gotten a lot more respectable responses.

  • 01.10.2012 2:51 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Heroic Member

Real account.

Join me as we make new friends from different communities!

If you assign every letter of the alphabet a number, a is 1, b is 2, etc., and you take all of the values of the word "MATH", and add them, you get 42. So math is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.

Shields and health were in CE.

  • 01.10.2012 2:51 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

*wonders how New Clan Recruitment For Shadow Pack thread gets 55 replies*

*reads "Hi I'm Ashley. . ." *

[Question Answered]

*proceeds to read on, shakes head, and gently laughs*


Posted by: hellstorm5

Posted by: Sgt Commando
Should rename to the "Difference Between Halo 2/3 Multiplayer & Halo Reach Multiplayer".


Yes, I should have done that. If I did, I would have gotten a lot more respectable responses.
Yes, but doing so would vitiate your thesis. Unless by "Halo: Reach really has nothing to do with what Halo has been since its beginning...." you mean that Halo Reach has little to do with Halo 1/2/3's storyline, then your right. Halo Reach isnt about stopping the Covenant. Its about the courageous contributions that Noble Team made during their time on Reach.

But since this is apparently about multiplayer settings, then this thread is a contradiction in and of itself. It also unfair to say that Halo Reach isnt "Halo" based on the radical differences it has to Halo: CE. Of course Halo Reach will be different from it, it had three other games launched before it, sharing different features from every single one of them, but it also added a little along the way. Halo Reach is, nevertheless, just as "Halo" as its predecessors.

  • 01.10.2012 3:31 PM PDT

Posted by: burritosenior... What? You're saying that replacing the one shot with a 3 shot weapon that accomplishes the exact same thing isn't changing the game. But you're also saying that taking away the three shot weapon and putting back in a one shot weapon is completely changing the game. You are completely contradicting yourself, and even if this did constitute 'such a huge change,' it's still asinine to suggest that this means Halo: Reach is 'not Halo.'

Okay,Halo went from pistol, to adding 3 burst rifle, to slightly adjusting the 3 burst rifle, to removing the BR all together and adding a single shot rifle WITH BLOOM. That progression makes no sense to me. Maybe if the single shot rifle didn't have bloom, I might accept it, but they fundamentally changed the game by changing 2 aspects of the rifle, it didn't add to it at all. It basically took long range kills with a rifle out of the game since any idiot can just walk behind something before dying because they know they have time to do so since you have to pace your shots in order to kill someone long range.

Posted by: burritoseniorWhere are you making these numbers up from? From your own service record? Because you have 822 kills with the sniper rifle and only 356 headshots. That is a 43%. So actually by your logic, it has gotten even HARDER to get headshots!
Where are you making these numbers up from? From your own service record? Because you have 822 kills with the sniper rifle and only 356 headshots. That is a 43%. So actually by your logic, it has gotten even HARDER to get headshots!


Look at anyone who uses the sniper in any game. Yes, sometimes it goes under 50%, but if you average everyone who uses the sniper in a game, it's way over 50%. I think I've checked dozens upon dozens of games, and this is the case almost 100% of the time. If not, I bet overall it's true.

As for myself. I hate the sniper, suck at it, and almost never use it, and I STILL have 43%... So what does that tell you about someone who loves it, is good at it, and uses it all the time?

Posted by: burritosenior
You say that, then go right on to say 'but having any of these 'tweaks' means it isn't the same game.' Equipment is not a 'little tweak.' And if you're counting it as one, then you are required by your own logic to count Armor Abilities as one.


I never said 'having any of these tweaks...' But let me explain yet again... The progression of any game involves minor tweaks and maybe a fundamental change... What Reach did was change TWO fundamentals of the game while also tweaking almost every other aspect of the game. I can understand a lot of minor tweaking or maybe less tweaking and a fundamental change, or whatever combination, but damn... Everything?

I am not. I am making the connections that YOUR logic is saying, and if you cannot understand the concept of logic then you should not be here.

Well you pretty much are. You're like propaganda in media. I say something, then you try to twist my words while also adding, "By your logic..." So you're subliminally trying to gain supporters by acting like you know my logic by using YOUR logic.

You say that Halo 2 got rid of health and that's OK because it's just a tweak. Then you claim that adding it back is unacceptable and means the game that does so is 'Not Halo.' This is completely contradictory and asinine at best. And ODST is most certain NOT irrelevant, and don't you dare try to argue that further. THAT is a desperate attempt to count off a perfectly valid point with absolutely no logical backing behind it.

Again, minor tweaks are okay, but adding health was one of MANY minor tweaks along with 2 FUNDAMENTAL changes.

And instead of just saying ODST is relavent, why don't you give a reason? I have yet to see a "valid point" with "logical backing behind it" concerning this from you. I gave you mine... I'm talking multiplayer. Campaign/AI strategy is nothing compared to p2p multiplayer tactics.

Bloom is a Halo: Reach mechanic. One that hardly means Halo: Reach is 'not Halo.' Idiotic to say otherwise, to be frank.

This response is idiotic, to be frank. I'm not even quite sure what you're point is... Are you saying the last and only Halo to have bloom didn't completely change the dynamics of multiplayer of previous Halos? (See how I'm asking a question and not acting like I understand "your logic" without waiting for a reply?)

Hey guess what mate? Progression of the game took it to the DMR and kept the pistol. So essentially, you're wrong.

Yes, they KEPT the pistol, then ADDED the BR, then TWEAKED the BR, but then they REMOVED the BR and REMOVED the static reticle REPLACING it with a DMR, not adding it. They removed 2 things that were damn near fundamental to Halo. And in most games, you don't get the pistol, you get the assualt rifle. So they pretty much removed the pistol as well.

  • 01.10.2012 3:36 PM PDT


Posted by: Sgt Commando

Posted by: hellstorm5

Posted by: Sgt Commando
Should rename to the "Difference Between Halo 2/3 Multiplayer & Halo Reach Multiplayer".


Yes, I should have done that. If I did, I would have gotten a lot more respectable responses.
Yes, but doing so would vitiate your thesis. Unless by "Halo: Reach really has nothing to do with what Halo has been since its beginning...." you mean that Halo Reach has little to do with Halo 1/2/3's storyline, then your right. Halo Reach isnt about stopping the Covenant. Its about the courageous contributions that Noble Team made during their time on Reach.

But since this is apparently about multiplayer settings, then this thread is a contradiction in and of itself. It also unfair to say that Halo Reach isnt "Halo" based on the radical differences it has to Halo: CE. Of course Halo Reach will be different from it, it had three other games launched before it, sharing different features from every single one of them, but it also added a little along the way. Halo Reach is, nevertheless, just as "Halo" as its predecessors.


First and foremost, thank you for your logical and non-flaming reply so we can actually have a conversation.

Reach's radical differences isn't just from Halo: CE, it's from all of them. I understand there were 4 games before Reach, each adding to and having minor tweaks, but Reach made fundamental changes along with tweaking almost everything else.

Except ODST, which used Halo 3's multiplayer, but yes, it added to the storyline, which effected Reach, but like I said in my OP in the first sentence, I don't care about the storyline. I understand the storyline and the reasoning for the changes, but that doesn't make it acceptable to change the game. Also, if Reach is a different storyline "about the courageous contributions that Noble Team made during their time on Reach", doesn't that in itself make it a different game?

It's kind of like the 6 Star Wars movies... A lot of, if not most, people hate the 3 prequals and don't count them as 'real' Star Wars movies.

[Edited on 01.10.2012 3:56 PM PST]

  • 01.10.2012 3:51 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Why are we still beating this dead horse???

You know what, we should bring back all Reach related nostalgia, and start complaining about armor lock again.

  • 01.10.2012 3:59 PM PDT


Posted by: Captain Hero
Why are we still beating this dead horse???

You know what, we should bring back all Reach related nostalgia, and start complaining about armor lock again.


If you don't want to beat this dead horse, don't read and don't reply. You actually helped this thread by replying and bumping it to the top of the list, so thank you for helping to beat this dead horse.

  • 01.10.2012 4:03 PM PDT

Not this -blam!- again if you wanna play Halo CE play it. I just like to stay on the game that gets updated most frequently. I love play the Halo Reach multiplayer. The armour abilities bring something new to the table. Why am I even posting this, this is silly it's like the game just got released.

  • 01.10.2012 4:05 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

*wonders how New Clan Recruitment For Shadow Pack thread gets 55 replies*

*reads "Hi I'm Ashley. . ." *

[Question Answered]

*proceeds to read on, shakes head, and gently laughs*


Posted by: hellstorm5
Reach's radical differences isn't just from Halo: CE, it's from all of them. I understand there were 4 games before Reach, each adding to and having minor tweaks, but Reach made fundamental changes along with tweaking almost everything else.
In that case, Halo 2 also had considerable differences aswell. We could make a list of ambitious features added here, too. Although it may seem offhand to bring this up, it makes a good reference to this debate. Halo 2 had made fundamental changes along with tweaking almost everything else.

Nowadays, its implied that games in a series will progressively be altered. That does not knock them from their place though.

Also, if Reach is a different storyline "about the courageous contributions that Noble Team made during their time on Reach", doesn't that in itself make it a different game?No, but thats a whole different topic.

  • 01.10.2012 4:17 PM PDT

Posted by: CultMiester4000
I'm not really an Apple person (Bananas forever) but damn, that's kinda sad.

If it wasn't that that list was totally wrong, multiple posters/trolls continued to feed the fire with more wrong facts.

Halo Reach takes place in the Halo universe, it has references to events in other games/media. It is inextricably linked to the rest of the series.

Virtually everything is the same, with minor tweaks, and the addition of reticule bloom in only really important on three weapons. Armour Abilities can be disabled and vice versa.

??????

And if you say Reach is like Call of Duty, you're not just wrong, you're Wuttermelon wrong

But of course OP, good troll, you had me going, 7/10, points docked for lack of originality

  • 01.10.2012 4:18 PM PDT

I don't mean to brag I don't mean to boast but I got hummus for these MINI TOASTS!

Um then why does it have -Halo- in its name (KEYWORD:Halo)......

  • 01.10.2012 4:38 PM PDT

Halo CE > Reach Anniversary > Halo 3 > Halo 2 > Default Reach

  • 01.10.2012 4:47 PM PDT


Posted by: DeCePTioN Zz
Um then why does it have -Halo- in its name (KEYWORD:Halo)......


Wow, how intelligent. Please bestow more wisdom up me.

  • 01.10.2012 6:42 PM PDT


Posted by: ParagonRenegade
If it wasn't that that list was totally wrong, multiple posters/trolls continued to feed the fire with more wrong facts.


Totally wrong? Your unexplained and self righteous response is totally wrong.

Halo Reach takes place in the Halo universe, it has references to events in other games/media. It is inextricably linked to the rest of the series.

No kidding. Obviously I don't literally mean Halo: Reach is not part of the Halo story.

Virtually everything is the same, with minor tweaks, and the addition of reticule bloom in only really important on three weapons. Armour Abilities can be disabled and vice versa.

Well that's just wrong.

But of course OP, good troll, you had me going, 7/10, points docked for lack of originality

Well I give you 10/10 points for being an arrogant anti-troll who thinks he's so much smarter than everyone else and bashes people with little to no argument, but tries to sound like they know what they're talking about.

  • 01.10.2012 6:55 PM PDT

This is my first post here so forgive me if I'm posting using the wrong buttons or something of the sort.

Personally I found the Milti-player in reach created new obstacles for the pro "like armorlock" that gave that split second for the noob "like myself."

When I started playing Halo 3 I started late, by the time I started playing there were pros dominating the field like ants. It got to the point that I stopped playing Halo after a while because there was no opportunity to learn and improve. I had just enough time to scream while being shot in the chest with the shot gun.
What I am saying is the developers realized that not many of the online players were going to improve as quickly as the hard core fans like yourselves and supplied a certain few things to fit the needs of us many players who wont continue playing if we remain noobs forever.
Look at my stats in my profile I'll give you a second..........all that suckage is an improvement comparably the past 2 years of playing Halo 3.

Tell me its not their falt "the developers" or that I just suck all you want but the fact is I now like playing the game much much more than I did halo 2 and 3. Couple the slight advantage given to us noobs with the intensified graphics, the new revamped armors, and the way the A.I. function and you have a game that can both tell the Halo story while meeting the needs of Halo's extremely wide fan base.
When making Halo Reach they couldn't please everyone.
If you look at the profile for the guy who started this thread you can plainly see its not that he doesn't like Reach he just prefers Halo 3 over the other games personally. His past like 4 games were the things that strike fear into us noobs.

[Edited on 01.10.2012 7:18 PM PST]

  • 01.10.2012 7:16 PM PDT

LISTTTTSSSSSSS i hate them...

  • 01.10.2012 7:17 PM PDT

Imperials love there damn lists...

  • 01.10.2012 7:18 PM PDT