Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: What happened to Reach's population?
  • Subject: What happened to Reach's population?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: What happened to Reach's population?

Posted by: cameo_cream
Halo 3 had to deal with games like CoD 4. Battlefield. Forza and so on. Yet it remained number one for two years or so.
Halo: Reach also has to deal with all those games, as they are already out. Halo: Reach is not only beating them all, but it is also beating the game ahead of it. Since Halo: Reach is only 'losing' to games newer than it, the fact that Halo: Reach is higher than Halo 3 is a testament to how inferior Halo 3 is.

  • 08.05.2012 6:45 PM PDT

Posted by: cameo_cream
Halo 3 was older than games behind it when it was out, yet it was number one.
Halo: Reach is beating those same games. It's also beating the game that was ahead of THOSE games. Your logic is flawed.

  • 08.05.2012 6:46 PM PDT

x7R0LLF4CE FTWx

Halo PC Name: x7R0LLF4CEx, Gamertag, x7R0LLF4CE FTWx


Posted by: cameo_cream
Reach is some three years younger than Halo 3.

Halo 3 pulls the same population at times as Reach.

Reach is something like number seven or eight most played.

Halo 3 is something like number 10.

Therefore Reach is trash.


Amen.

[Edited on 08.05.2012 6:49 PM PDT]

  • 08.05.2012 6:49 PM PDT

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

March 3, 2553


Posted by: burritosenior
Posted by: cameo_cream
Halo 3 had to deal with games like CoD 4. Battlefield. Forza and so on. Yet it remained number one for two years or so.
Halo: Reach also has to deal with all those games, as they are already out. Halo: Reach is not only beating them all, but it is also beating the game ahead of it. Since Halo: Reach is only 'losing' to games newer than it, the fact that Halo: Reach is higher than Halo 3 is a testament to how inferior Halo 3 is.


I'm fairly sure lolreach isn't beat MW2 (An older game, but your logic this should be behind Reach. But it isn't? Hmm?) It isn't beating Black Ops, or MW3. And it's beating a five year old game, oh ya think? I would be worried if a sequel was doing worse than a predecessor after five years.

Again. When Halo 3 was out it was number one most played, and was beating games newer than it. Reach possesses none of these qualities. So please explain to me how Reach is a better game because the vast majority would strongly disagree.

  • 08.05.2012 6:52 PM PDT

I <3 Halo:Reach - amazingly fun and best campaign + amazing Soundtrack
I <3 Halo 3:ODST - best soundtrack + Firefight + Coastal Highway and Mombassa Streets, amazingly unique campaign.
I <3 Halo 3 - best multiplayer levels + Forge + best Custom Games + soundtrack
I <3 Halo 2 - amazing huge fun campaign + soundtrack + Fun multiplayer
I <3 Halo: CE - started it all


Posted by: the pib
It shows that Reach is two years old and has heavy competition from half a dozen other very good titles. Grow up.


This. The amount of immaturity in this thread is unbelievable.

  • 08.05.2012 6:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: burritosenior
Posted by: cameo_cream
Reach is some three years younger than Halo 3.

Halo 3 pulls the same population at times as Reach.

Reach is something like number seven or eight most played.

Halo 3 is something like number 10.

Therefore Reach is trash.
Halo: Reach is five. Halo 3 is twelve. Halo: Reach is beating Halo 3 by a mile.

Halo 3 is older than Halo: Reach. Halo: Reach is older than every game in front of it.

Therefore Halo: Reach is better than Halo 3.


There is a lot more random trash to cater to now. Of course they are going to play Reach, they'd get embarrassed playing 3.

  • 08.05.2012 6:56 PM PDT

Posted by: cameo_cream
I'm fairly sure lolreach isn't beat MW2 (An older game, but your logic this should be behind Reach. But it isn't? Hmm?)
It is. Shows how many facts you know before making claims, mate. Every game ahead of Halo: Reach right now came out after it.

It isn't beating Black Ops, or MW3.Neither is Halo 3.
And it's beating a five year old game, oh ya think? I would be worried if a sequel was doing worse than a predecessor after five years.Good thing it isn't doing worse than its predecessor then, despite the ravings of a bunch of blind haters, neh? In fact, it's utterly crushing the game that came before!

Again. When Halo 3 was out it was number one most played, and was beating games newer than it. Reach possesses none of these qualities. So please explain to me how Reach is a better game because the vast majority would strongly disagree.Because Halo: Reach is not only beating those same games that Halo 3 was beating, but it's beating Halo 3 now. This clearly means it's a better game.

Logic pwned.

  • 08.05.2012 6:59 PM PDT

Half of what I say is true. The other half are also lies.


░█▀▀ ░█▀█ ░█ ░█▀▀ ░░█▀▀ ░█▀█ ░█ ░█ ░░░
░█▀▀ ░█▀▀ ░█ ░█ ░░░░█▀▀ ░█▀█ ░█ ░█ ░░░
░▀▀▀ ░▀ ░░░▀ ░▀▀▀ ░░▀ ░░░▀░▀ ░▀ ░▀▀▀ ░

There are numbers falling out of people's butts.

  • 08.05.2012 7:02 PM PDT

Posted by: militaryguns
I'm sorry America is busy helping others in the world and actually making a difference.

Something Canada will never do.

if you believe halo reach is more successful than halo 3 you have retardation, it's pretty clear if you have basic common sense.

  • 08.05.2012 7:03 PM PDT

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

March 3, 2553


Posted by: burritosenior

It is. Shows how many facts you know before making claims, mate. Every game ahead of Halo: Reach right now came out after it.

Yet when Halo 3 came out, all new games that came out were, wait for it behind it

Neither is Halo 3.

Would you expect in five years for Reach to be beating a brand new game? No. So why do you compare a five year old game to the present day with a two year old game. Your argument is logically flawed.

And it's beating a five year old game, oh ya think? I would be worried if a sequel was doing worse than a predecessor after five years.

Good thing it isn't doing worse than its predecessor then, despite the ravings of a bunch of blind haters, neh? In fact, it's utterly crushing the game that came before!

Actually based on it's position after five years on the most played it is. Halo 3 was number one for two years straight then number two for another year after that. I don't see Reach at number two? Do you?

Because Halo: Reach is not only beating those same games that Halo 3 was beating, but it's beating Halo 3 now. This clearly means it's a better game.

Oh wow. I'm sorry for your loss. Your brain has seemed to have left you. I'm so sorry. So Reach is beating yet another five year old game. Not a very big accomplishment if you ask me. You're actually helping me prove my argument.

Logic pwned.

No. I think you just did that to yourself.

[Edited on 08.05.2012 7:08 PM PDT]

  • 08.05.2012 7:08 PM PDT

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

March 3, 2553


Posted by: burritosenior

We both know this argument is going nowhere. And you're distracting me from my work :p

  • 08.05.2012 7:10 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

So much bias in this thread. Here is the final verdict:

Reach is number whatever on the charts instead of 1 because it is 2 years old and there are other, newer games out there. Halo 3 is where it is because it is 5 years old.

These stands true regardless of your opinion on the game. Play what you like and stop giving a damn what is better.

  • 08.05.2012 7:14 PM PDT

Posted by: cameo_cream
Yet when Halo 3 came out, all new games that came out were, wait for it behind it
And when Halo: Reach came out, it was and still is beating all those exact same games. AND it's beating the game that was beating THOSE games!

Would you expect in five years for Reach to be beating a brand new game? No.Games generally get better as time goes on. As is the case with Halo: Reach and Halo 3.
So why do you compare a five year old game to the present day with a two year old game.Why are you? I'm not the one in this thread that started the comparison.

Your argument is logically flawed.My name is kettle. How are you?


Actually based on it's position after five years on the most played it is. Halo 3 was number one for two years straight then number two for another year after that. I don't see Reach at number two? Do you?
I don't see Halo 3 beating the games that Halo: Reach is behind. What I do see is how Halo 3 is being crushed by the same games Halo: Reach is being beaten by, AND Halo: Reach is crushing Halo 3. So either the 'time' argument has no merit, thus making Halo: Reach a better game on its own since it's beating Halo 3, or it DOES have merit and Halo: Reach is just losing to games that came out after it.

So Reach is beating yet another five year old game. Not a very big accomplishment if you ask me. You're actually helping me prove my argument.Yep. Halo: Reach is beating a game that is older than it. Just like the games that are ahead of Halo: Reach are.


No. I think you just did that to yourself.
Indeed you did.

  • 08.05.2012 7:21 PM PDT

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

March 3, 2553

^

I read the first line. I'm being trolled.

:D

  • 08.05.2012 7:24 PM PDT

I <3 Halo:Reach - amazingly fun and best campaign + amazing Soundtrack
I <3 Halo 3:ODST - best soundtrack + Firefight + Coastal Highway and Mombassa Streets, amazingly unique campaign.
I <3 Halo 3 - best multiplayer levels + Forge + best Custom Games + soundtrack
I <3 Halo 2 - amazing huge fun campaign + soundtrack + Fun multiplayer
I <3 Halo: CE - started it all

http://majornelson.com/2012/08/01/live-activity-for-week-of-j uly-23

ZOMG Halo:Reach is beating Battlefield 3, and Halo:reach is 2 years old!

Battlefield 3 is soo bad!

[Edited on 08.05.2012 7:42 PM PDT]

  • 08.05.2012 7:42 PM PDT

@spawn031

"So much of what we do is ephemeral and quickly forgotten, even by ourselves, so it's gratifying to have something you have done linger in people's memories." John Williams

Posted by: Old Papa Rich
Come on burrito, you know there is only one good game and thousands of losers. You're either first or you're last.
Well then in this case Starcraft > All.

Unless, you're referring to BUNGLE (ermagerd) Hallway, there was a reason we didn't play it at the last gamenight, even though burrito was online. >.>

343 Industries has tried to please everyone with all these recent updates every month, there is only so much you can do. They're all just worried about Halo 4 now though.

[Edited on 08.05.2012 8:16 PM PDT]

  • 08.05.2012 8:00 PM PDT

Posted by: spawn031
BUNGLE Hallway
lrn2acronym.

  • 08.05.2012 8:11 PM PDT

Because reach sucks

  • 08.05.2012 8:22 PM PDT

Posted by: AngryBrute1
Oh yeah, since somebody does not believe what YOU believe; that makes us vapid...
I cannot grasp that what you call "Something happened to nothing, and that nothing became something, and it was smaller than than a period."

Because it's losing it's popularity.
Not all, but it is decreasing.

[Edited on 08.05.2012 8:50 PM PDT]

  • 08.05.2012 8:50 PM PDT

Now day...wait...nvm i'm tired.


Posted by: the pib
It shows that Reach is two years old and has heavy competition from half a dozen other very good titles. Grow up.

  • 08.05.2012 8:57 PM PDT

Why Bungie, why would you do this?! - Halo Community


Posted by: burritosenior
Posted by: Dark Hunter 2100
So a sequel ends up more populated than its predecessor? No way!/sarcasm
Halo: Reach is utterly destroying Halo 3 right now. Your pathetic attempts at sarcasm (protip: if you have to say 'sarcasm' in there, you're doing it wrong) don't change the facts.

A quick look at the chart and its history showed Halo 3 stood its ground against every new COD/Gears of War/ect. thrown at it. Reach flipped like a piece of paper the first COD game released after its release.
And oh- look at this. These games all come out and Halo 3 is crushed. Now not only are all these new games crushing it, but so is Halo: Reach! Since the numbers are the important thing, that means Halo: Reach is better. This is a fact by your logic. Suck it up.


Thanks for completely dodging my point on how long Halo 3 lasted. Yes, Halo 3 has less of a population now because of Reach and Halo 4 is soon to come and shove it down even further. Any idiot can figure that out.

My point is Halo 3 lasted LONGER than Reach did on the boards. Longer.

  • 08.05.2012 9:30 PM PDT


Posted by: Dark Hunter 2100
Thanks for completely dodging my point on how long Halo 3 lasted.
I didn't dodge any point. I simply stated the undeniable fact you are avoiding.


My point is Halo 3 lasted LONGER than Reach did on the boards. Longer.
Indeed. And now Halo: Reach is beating all the games Halo 3 was beating AND Halo 3 itself. Thus it is a far superior game. Suck it up.

  • 08.05.2012 9:34 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Mythical Wolf
It's not popular. Never was.

  • 08.05.2012 9:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Mythical Wolf

Posted by: Bankovich


Halo 3s population counter is glitched/bugged/whatever you want to call it.

Nobody knows what the rule population is.
No, it's right, but it doesn't update all the time so that # could have been from 4pm in the afternoon at peak.

  • 08.05.2012 9:41 PM PDT

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