Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why is Reach boring?
  • Subject: Why is Reach boring?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: Why is Reach boring?

Posted by: xBADMAGIKx

Posted by: SatansReverence
Search for 10 minutes.

Win by obscene margin.

Rince and repeat add infinium.


That is all Halo games bro. Reach is not different.
Implying that you couldn't find fair matches in the past.

  • 08.04.2012 12:15 PM PDT

R.I.P CrunchyBoi 22 (old profile)

Accualy iz dolan

  • 08.04.2012 12:31 PM PDT


Posted by: xBADMAGIKx

Posted by: SatansReverence
Search for 10 minutes.

Win by obscene margin.

Rince and repeat add infinium.


That is all Halo games bro. Reach is not different.

Yes it is. Halo 2 and Halo 3's matches are infinitely better than Reach's matches because the game at least tried to pair you up with someone close to your team's level.

  • 08.04.2012 6:51 PM PDT

I prefer Halo 3 over it. Seeing as I predominantly play BTB, it's not really a contest. Vehicles, the BR, Maps and the gametypes are all better then their counterparts in Reach.

  • 08.04.2012 7:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Sometimes, I dream about cheese.

not that it's a boring game, just that the maps are really bad

  • 08.04.2012 7:37 PM PDT

Halo is not a game, it's a legacy

I think as you grow older games don't grip you as much.
I could sit and play games all day now i just can't.

  • 08.04.2012 7:51 PM PDT


Posted by: ZigZagGamer95
I think as you grow older games don't grip you as much.
I could sit and play games all day now i just can't.

No, because games like SWTOR and BF3 still hold my interest.

Reach doesn't, and a good Halo game usually did hold my attention.

  • 08.04.2012 8:03 PM PDT

Owning Noobs Since 05

"I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like his passengers."

Jim Harkins

I blame the ranking system and the loadouts.

  • 08.04.2012 10:39 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

Hey.


Posted by: AVGN833
Ever since the release of it's beta, Reach has been the only game out there worth playing. They continually update the game with new challenges and game types, which is more than I can say for anything else out there. Further, they carefully monitor for hacks and mods to preserve the purity of the game for everyone who signs in to play. How in your esteemed opinion do you figure it went down-hill?

It's more likely that you're some COD fan-boy who's just trolling. Frankly, I think you ought to feel thankful that this websites MODs haven't shut down this pathetic post.
I love how some people call others with different opinions "trolls." Sorry not all of us enjoy Reach as much as you do.

  • 08.05.2012 9:41 AM PDT


Posted by: Verachi
I blame the ranking system and the loadouts.

Those are definitely part of it and I would consider it a better game if they were remedied, but there are several things that Reach does wrong that strike a heavy blow against it.

Like not having AA's placed on the maps, not having a good selection of maps, bad sandbox balance which alienates several weapons, and other things.

  • 08.05.2012 6:05 PM PDT

In memory of those fallen in the defense of Earth and her colonies.

March 3, 2553

Because it was made for casuals, and casual games get boring - fast

  • 08.05.2012 6:33 PM PDT

Please don't hype for games...
They'll just fall short of your expectations and you'll complain for months.


Posted by: ThreeSixXero

Posted by: Rage Twin 2
No incentive to play really.

But why?

How do they go from a decently successful game to something that dies out faster than they can churn out another one?

Even ODST has more replay value in its features.
People have the mindset that they have to have some reward, even rank. Me? I'm still not bored of reach. I play because I find it entertaining.

  • 08.05.2012 7:42 PM PDT


Posted by: Mikelp_1
The adrenaline-packed thrills that you have in 10 seconds of games like Battlefield 3 are stretched out over an hour with Reach because it slow as hell.


So true... It takes forever to kill someone on Halo. It's all double teaming and grenades. Last time I saw someone not use a power weapon? I can't seem to remember.. The beta was good but I don't know why.

[Edited on 08.05.2012 10:55 PM PDT]

  • 08.05.2012 10:55 PM 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: Sliding Ghost
Better than the other stuff out there but it will never live up to CE.

It's campaign is boring because:

-repetitive
-random
-ridiculous

If teleporting invincible friendly AI, AI losing their AI in the middle of war, and BOBs that aren't even used in combat is considered immersive, I dread this generation of gamers. It is a sad thing people will grow up with immense amount of scripting instead of taking a stand, defying the developer, and being creative.

This was a process that started with Halo 3.

-Generally watered down and uninteresting story till the very end.
-Bad voice acting and sometimes dialogue
-Major sacrifices of canon for the sake of gameplay
-Boring enemies that are repetitive or who just stare at you (thankfully this was fixed in Reach, but it was sooo bad in Halo 3)
-Linear and small environments, big environments are vehicles or go back home
-AI driving was worse than Halo 2 in some respects
-Story focusing entirely on the Chief, no Covenant Viewpoint
-Not much out of the map exploration, that doesn't involve 1000 invisible barriers
-Many scripted events rather than cutscenes or better yet user orientated events such as cutting the cable in Oracle

[Edited on 08.06.2012 12:10 AM PDT]

  • 08.06.2012 12:07 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Quantam

Posted by: Sliding Ghost
Better than the other stuff out there but it will never live up to CE.

It's campaign is boring because:

-repetitive
-random
-ridiculous

If teleporting invincible friendly AI, AI losing their AI in the middle of war, and BOBs that aren't even used in combat is considered immersive, I dread this generation of gamers. It is a sad thing people will grow up with immense amount of scripting instead of taking a stand, defying the developer, and being creative.

This was a process that started with Halo 3.

-Generally watered down and uninteresting story till the very end.
-Bad voice acting and sometimes dialogue
-Major sacrifices of canon for the sake of gameplay
-Boring enemies that are repetitive or who just stare at you (thankfully this was fixed in Reach, but it was sooo bad in Halo 3)
-Linear and small environments, big environments are vehicles or go back home
-AI driving was worse than Halo 2 in some respects
-Story focusing entirely on the Chief, no Covenant Viewpoint
-Not much out of the map exploration, that doesn't involve 1000 invisible barriers
-Many scripted events rather than cutscenes or better yet user orientated events such as cutting the cable in Oracle
Nonetheless, H3 was still executed better.

-yeah. It gets interesting during The Covenant
-I don't know about that. I happen to like Arby's voice & dialogue. Though I do dislike how H3's IWHBYD can induce inappropriate speech
-true. The AR and pistol start on Sierra 117 *shudders* AR lost half it's clip and pistol is a tragic downgrade
-yes repetitive. While I dislike resorting to clip shooting and all that other Mythic stuff, it's in every Halo game. It's just a bit more harder to do in Reach (with a little positioning, you can easily take down the Zealots at the end of WC and PoA)
-yep
-yep
-I disliked the loss of our weapon appearing in cutscenes. Only the first mission showed Chief holding our weapon
-eh that's an exaggeration. Reach is way worse, employing invisible barriers after it's 10 second countdowns. Course, both games require Phantoms for the easiest way out but H3's is much more worthwhile (getting out of Sierra 117 lets you access the dam as well as the Crow's Nest cutscene area. Getting out of LNoS only lets you get a Seraph. The cutscene room is practically impossible to access without modding)
-true. I disliked Sierra 117's ending: both Phantoms have timed deaths and that Pelican is impossible to stop (by the time it comes close enough for you to throw a grenade through the cockpit and kill the pilot, any Covie that was on the bridge will be dead thanks to it's magic missiles)

  • 08.06.2012 12:43 AM PDT


Posted by: Quantam

Posted by: Sliding Ghost
Better than the other stuff out there but it will never live up to CE.

It's campaign is boring because:

-repetitive
-random
-ridiculous

If teleporting invincible friendly AI, AI losing their AI in the middle of war, and BOBs that aren't even used in combat is considered immersive, I dread this generation of gamers. It is a sad thing people will grow up with immense amount of scripting instead of taking a stand, defying the developer, and being creative.

This was a process that started with Halo 3.

-Generally watered down and uninteresting story till the very end.
-Bad voice acting and sometimes dialogue
-Major sacrifices of canon for the sake of gameplay
-Boring enemies that are repetitive or who just stare at you (thankfully this was fixed in Reach, but it was sooo bad in Halo 3)
-Linear and small environments, big environments are vehicles or go back home
-AI driving was worse than Halo 2 in some respects
-Story focusing entirely on the Chief, no Covenant Viewpoint
-Not much out of the map exploration, that doesn't involve 1000 invisible barriers
-Many scripted events rather than cutscenes or better yet user orientated events such as cutting the cable in Oracle

Halo 3's campaign was still significantly better than Reach's. Plus, it still doesn't make sense that they had the capacity to produce an ODST quality game, but then go to Reach.

  • 08.06.2012 9:52 AM PDT

besides everything else everyone mentioned, i personally blame the map selection

  • 08.06.2012 2:41 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Legendary Member

When the game is over, the king and pawn go into the same box


Posted by: ThreeSixXero
Plus, it still doesn't make sense that they had the capacity to produce an ODST quality game, but then go to Reach.


I think each game was developed by separate teams, right?

Reach gets really boring if I play too much of any one playlist, or am playing solo. A full team makes it interesting, but that could be attributed to the conversation, not always the game.

  • 08.06.2012 3:01 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Without The Flood, I wouldn't know what an opinion is.

Because there's no gratification for winning.
The credit system makes the entire experience built around credits. Credits were done very poorly.

  • 08.06.2012 9:01 PM PDT


Posted by: Coux73

Posted by: ThreeSixXero
Plus, it still doesn't make sense that they had the capacity to produce an ODST quality game, but then go to Reach.


I think each game was developed by separate teams, right?

They were, but ODST was an expansion of sorts. There's no way that the ODST team writers couldn't have had input on Reach's campaign.

In fact, Reach looks like it tried to copy ODST's type of team-based story but just inserted sporadic deaths along the way in an effort to make it "emotional."

The only death they got right was Jorge's. Kat's was just retarded and done completely wrong, Carter's was too detached, and Emile got taken out because he apparently didn't have a motion sensor or the dexterity and reflexes of an average man.

Posted by: Coux73
Reach gets really boring if I play too much of any one playlist, or am playing solo. A full team makes it interesting, but that could be attributed to the conversation, not always the game.

Full-teaming it is the only way to play the game, and that's part of why I find Reach boring: I can't just press the matchmaking button and expect a decent match. And full-teaming doesn't eliminate the fact that the game is still broken and that there are many maps that are utter garbage.

[Edited on 08.06.2012 9:49 PM PDT]

  • 08.06.2012 9:46 PM PDT

Halo will never be boring simply because I can stick someone in the face.

However, topic highjack. Why is MLG in reach so lame? All it is are a bunch of guys running around without loadouts or radars and jerking off their DMRs. So boring, and the clan I just joined says that's all they play.

[Edited on 08.06.2012 11:51 PM PDT]

  • 08.06.2012 11:45 PM PDT


Posted by: Wobbles
Halo will never be boring simply because I can stick someone in the face.

CoD must never be boring, then, because Scavenger and Semtex grenades allows you an almost infinite capacity to stick people.

Even if it's worse off than Reach is.

[Edited on 08.07.2012 8:36 AM PDT]

  • 08.07.2012 8:35 AM PDT

Member of team Master Theory.

17th Mythic Conqueror of Halo 3.
5th Mythic Conqueror of ODST.
If you would like to know more about Mythic difficulty please go to this thread. Thank you.

Please do not send me "recruitment messages" as I'm not interested in joining any groups currently.

I find MM boring due to what I believe are less than optimal gametypes/settings and poor map selection.

However customs can make me want to keep playing for hours at a time.

Frankly I'd rather play Reach customs than Halo 3 MM, at least in Reach shots register properly on all but the worst hosts.

  • 08.07.2012 9:17 AM PDT


Posted by: ThreeSixXero

Posted by: Wobbles
Halo will never be boring simply because I can stick someone in the face.

CoD must never be boring, then, because Scavenger and Semtex grenades allows you an almost infinite capacity to stick people.

Even if it's worse off than Reach is.
Nah it's just not the same. CoD gets so old because it's just a bunch of kids who know where all the spawn points are so they just spawn kill you every other death. Battlefield, however has completely owned CoD in terms of gameplay and fun IMO

  • 08.08.2012 12:34 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

RIP Bungie Service Records. You shall be missed.

> Takes too long to rank up w/o playing Firefight all month.
> Campaign is bad and boring.
> Just bad overall.

  • 08.08.2012 2:01 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4