Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why is REACH always held to such low regard?
  • Subject: Why is REACH always held to such low regard?
Subject: Why is REACH always held to such low regard?

Posted by: Hylebos
Reach had a ton of redeeming qualities that makes me excited for Bungie's future games, mostly in the realms of networking, engineering, music, and technology. But that doesn't mean that I can simply ignore the emotions I'm feeling when I play the multiplayer or campaign. Reach is an okay game, but it could have been so very much more.
It was either a fun game, or it wasn't. Regardless of anything you think could have been done better, any nitpicking you do doesn't mean the game is 'bad' or anything like most of the people here rant about.

That's because simply praising the obvious positives gets dull really fast.Complaining about nitpicky things gets boring much faster than talking about cool stuff that happened in a game or things you like. I must have missed the part where it was more fun to tell my friends, 'I hate this' than, 'Did you see that?' 'Do you remember when 'X?' and, 'This is awesome.'

But... nope. The second Halo: Reach comes out, it's blind hatred by a small number of people that expel it so much it catches on and infects the rest of the impressionable community.

...I just find the entire "This is a flaw / problem, what's the best way to fix it?" route of conversation to be ten times as deep and engaging. Perhaps that's just my mentality as a Computer Scientist, but having diagnose the problem from my observations and then comparing possible solutions is fascinating.
Saying there is a problem isn't the problem. Saying the overall project is 'bad' because of technicalities despite gameplay being fun? That's the problem. People -blam!-ing about all these little things don't care about whether or not the game is inherently fun or enjoyable to play. It's about how many issues they can make out of it. Hence the degradation of the community.

  • 12.05.2012 9:06 AM PDT

Stop arguing over imaginary -blam!-. May as well argue over Santa Claus. There will never be proof that there is/was a god - and before people start saying "HERP DERP PROVE THERE WASN'T ONE ROFLOLOL" well, you are the people who made it up in the first place so we know there isn't one
What created the big bang then? A coalition of genetically modified TR-909s with extra distortion?


Posted by: Shadroxon

Posted by: Plasma Prestige

Posted by: Shadroxon
People didn't like Reach because it was different. I for one liked the additions, well, excet for armor lock.

But if that logic were to hold true, Halo 4 should be absolutely hated by everyone. It's not. This confuses me.

Your--and many others'--attempt to simplify great issues with a sweeping insinuation is not only dishonest but insulting.
Why can't I learn it's never safe to post in a Reach thread without a flame suit on?

When did disagreeing with someone count as an insult?

  • 12.05.2012 9:08 AM PDT

This thread again? Fine let me go copy and paste what I said in the last thread like this.

-Worst campaign in the halo series with empty shells of characters. I didn't feel a thing when any of them died.
-Jet pack and sprint break map flow which means no more controlling high grounds, choke points or weapon spawns.
-Maps are designed to accommodate this new erratic map flow which made the maps terrible.
-Bloom encouraged spamming to win with random luck, making the game less skill oriented.
-Sprint allowed players losing DMR fights to run away along with people wielding swords to sprint at you making sword almost over powered on small maps.
-Armor lock allowed unskilled players who are loosing a fight to become invincible for too long while waiting for back up. It may have encouraged team work but made players rely less on skill.
-Forge world was great but lacked move-able objects like barriers and pallets which allowed for more creativity and every map was grey and looked the same. Other maps had forge but had such a little amount of forge-able objects it was near pointless, look at Boneyard really just some ramps?
-The ranking system wasn't based on skill but rather the amount of time spent playing. I don't know how many times I've played against an inheritor who was terrible at the game.
-The removal of so many things from past halo games that could have been in even if just for custom games. The elephant, chopper, hornet, gravity hammer, prowler/specter, BR, dual wielding, carbine, sentinel beam, and much more all could have been in but weren't.
-FireFight is boring after the first few minutes. It never really gets more challenging and is just the same thing over and over again unlike many other wave oriented modes from other games. Horde and CoD zombies are much more entertaining.
-They removed the ability to watch theater mode games with friends.
-Jet pack made HLGing far too easy and took no skill which made it even more common then in Halo 3.
-Invasion is completely in favor of humans. The plasma repeater is weaker then the assault rifle, the magnum is far superior to the plasma pistol and the beam rifle is garbage when compared to the sniper.
-Vehicle combat was a complete mess. Snipers and DMR destroyed vehicles so easily it was ridiculous. Before vehicles were something you had to control and take on intelligently. Now instead of having to stick/plasma pistol/control the laser/power drain the vehicles you just spam the DMR at them and their dead. Not to mention running into someone armor locked instantly blows up vehicles and jet pack made boarding banshees far too easy.
-Credits and challenges encouraged players to worry more about getting kills and challenges then actually winning the game or going for objective.
-No bleed through and sprint made most close combat situations into double melee fests rewarding the player who decides to stop aiming and shooting and start smashing the melee button.

I could go on for hours more but I won't. I'm not saying its a terrible game but it is by far my least favorite Halo game. An no I'm not wearing nostalgia glasses, I played all the Halo games in order of release and Halo 2 isn't my favorite and is my second least favorite after Reach. OP shouldn't have asked for my opinion about Reach :P

  • 12.05.2012 9:09 AM PDT

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out"
- Bill Hicks

For the same reason the ME3 ending gets so much stick:

The internet is full of losers who enjoy whining on forums and who like to make out that minor problems are, in fact, game-breaking issues.

[Edited on 12.05.2012 9:10 AM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 9:09 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

They call me graland.

Posted by: burritosenior
Saying the overall project is 'bad' because of technicalities despite gameplay being fun?

Posted by: burritosenior
despite gameplay being fun?

That's the problem. A lot of people didn't find it "fun." That's why it's "bad."

  • 12.05.2012 9:13 AM PDT

The majority of the people that liked Reach were the ones that were terrible at Halo 2 and 3. So naturally, they are going to like a game they are good at; I use good pretty lightly of course because anyone could have been good at Reach. The skill gap was ridiculously low and it added so many more random factors to the gameplay compared to the original three.

  • 12.05.2012 9:13 AM PDT

If good looks could kill, I'd be a weapon of mass destruction.

Q: Hey, what did Hitler say to the black jew?
A: Get to the back of the oven.


Posted by: TheUseless0ne
Because people don't like varied, interesting, and balanced gameplay.


HOOOOOOOOKAY.

  • 12.05.2012 9:16 AM PDT

Posted by: Garland
That's the problem. A lot of people didn't find it "fun." That's why it's "bad."
No- people say it's bad which is why people claim it isn't 'fun.' It has nothing to do with the game itself. It has to do with the negative mentality that is devolving the gaming community every time any new major title comes out.

These same people buy the games. These same people play the hell out of them. Yet the game is still 'bad' no matter what. It's ridiculous. I mean, look at you. Do you think it was bad? Because you were a 'Noble' rank.

The gameplay was very fun. The core gameplay was the same as past Halos. the problem comes from the nitpicking, not the game itself.

  • 12.05.2012 9:19 AM PDT

Boltshot = mini shotgun

I'm going to be hated for this, but:
I liked Reach as a shooter, not a Halo.

  • 12.05.2012 9:22 AM PDT

Basically, Bungie had the all the right ingredients for Reach(especially the refined sandbox), but they completely screwed up the recipe(mainly with loadouts and the way AAs worked), and it left a really bad taste in my mouth.

  • 12.05.2012 9:23 AM PDT

Posted by: burritosenior
Posted by: Hylebos
Reach had a ton of redeeming qualities that makes me excited for Bungie's future games, mostly in the realms of networking, engineering, music, and technology. But that doesn't mean that I can simply ignore the emotions I'm feeling when I play the multiplayer or campaign. Reach is an okay game, but it could have been so very much more.
It was either a fun game, or it wasn't.
The world is not so black and white Burrito.

Regardless of anything you think could have been done better, any nitpicking you do doesn't mean the game is 'bad' or anything like most of the people here rant about.Ultimately it's up to you to decide the exact degree to which a game is good or bad. I'm honestly not interested in such things, and it doesn't bother me too much if someone gives a game a different score than I would assign it. Far more interesting to me is their reasoning as to why the game got the score they gave it, and if that reasoning makes sense.

That's because simply praising the obvious positives gets dull really fast.Complaining about nitpicky things gets boring much faster than talking about cool stuff that happened in a game or things you like. I must have missed the part where it was more fun to tell my friends, 'I hate this' than, 'Did you see that?' 'Do you remember when 'X?' and, 'This is awesome.'I don't think I said it was more fun, I said it was more interesting. And it's true, swapping war stories, no matter how ridiculous, does not ellicit the same passion and depth of conversation as is invoked when we discuss where games went right and wrong.

But... nope. The second Halo: Reach comes out, it's blind hatred by a small number of people that expel it so much it catches on and infects the rest of the impressionable community.Lol.

Burrito, quite honestly, if it's an opinion that catches on with the rest of the community, it's not because that opinion is a virus, it's because people agree with it when presented with the evidence that backs that conclusion up. It's not like this is some huge conspiracy by a few elite players to sour the thoughts and minds of the impressionable and mindless masses. It's just gamers expressing their thoughts, and others agreeing and sometimes disagreeing with them.

...I just find the entire "This is a flaw / problem, what's the best way to fix it?" route of conversation to be ten times as deep and engaging. Perhaps that's just my mentality as a Computer Scientist, but having diagnose the problem from my observations and then comparing possible solutions is fascinating.Saying there is a problem isn't the problem. Saying the overall project is 'bad' because of technicalities despite gameplay being fun? That's the problem. People -blam!-ing about all these little things don't care about whether or not the game is inherently fun or enjoyable to play. It's about how many issues they can make out of it. Hence the degradation of the community.People shouldn't have to put a disclaimer that says "...But I had an Iota of fun when I played this particular part of the game so really everything I'm nitpicking about probably doesn't matter!" whenever they discuss flaws. The real problem seems to be that you care too much about people's ultimate conclusions, you really shouldn't let other people decide your happiness.

  • 12.05.2012 9:23 AM PDT

Hi, I am GrandmasterNinja the founder of a group called The Shadow League.If you are looking for a fun but serious group to join, this is your chance. If you do decide to Join, please PM me back to I can alert the Moderators of a new member. Remember, Honor The Code.

Join Here

BIGDADDY786

People who complain about jetpack,armor lock and sprint, MUST be complaining about jetpack, sprint and the shield in Halo 4 now right? I don't see it anywhere.

  • 12.05.2012 9:25 AM PDT

real gamertag is mvyorkie009

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1169280822&v=wall& amp;story_fbid=133425540008015&r833fa4ca&m_sess=1h8bm 6-msvlrePs&rb9441a98#!/profile.php?id=630409792
yorkie


Posted by: omg a bannana
Armor Lock and Bloom mostly.


this is the pocket nukes.
yorkie

  • 12.05.2012 9:31 AM PDT

Posted by: GrandmasterNinja
People who complain about jetpack,armor lock and sprint, MUST be complaining about jetpack, sprint and the shield in Halo 4 now right? I don't see it anywhere.
Well personally I feel that armor abillities themselves aren't a terrible idea, they were just implemented in Halo Reach.

For one, the hardlight shield isn't anything like Armor Lock at all. It doesn't guarantee absolute protection like Armor Lock did, it doesn't have nearly as many gimics tagged on in an attempt to make the abillity stronger (which really just made it more annoying as Armor Lock at it's core is very weak), and a huge one is that the hardlight shield actually has some applications in a team fight as opposed to Armor Lock which only selfishly shielded the user.

When it comes to sprint, the simple fact that it's difficult to sprint away from combat in Halo 4 because your speed drops off if you get shot makes all the difference in the world. In Halo Reach, you could just exit combat before your opponent had the chance to kill you, which slowed the pace of the game down quite a bit (Yes, you heard me, Sprint actually slowed down the pace of combat despite allowing you to get to the combat faster).

I don't know enough about Halo 4 to know how they changed the Jetpack, but from what I've heard it still introduces some map control issues into the game, I think it's just overshadowed by the numerous other features that destroy map control in Halo 4.

There's a lot of things in Halo 4 that they improved from Reach, but it introduces it's own brand of problems which sour the experience. I can't talk from authority however, I have yet to have hands on time with the multiplayer to any depth, I'll get back to you once I get on break.

[Edited on 12.05.2012 9:35 AM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 9:34 AM PDT

Who am I?

mah twitter


Posted by: Endoterrik 13

Posted by: Make117

Posted by: Endoterrik 13
Reach was the pinnacle of Halo.
lmao

I understand some find that laughable, but I preferred it the most. The Warthog was actually useable and without everyone starting with PP and Stickies (Halo 4) you could actually be an asset in the 'Hog.
I understand you liked it most but it doesn't mean it's the "pinnacle of Halo".

  • 12.05.2012 9:37 AM PDT

Expressing my strong liberal views without shame. Favorite quotes below:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
"One starts to live when he can live outside himself."

- Albert Einstein


Posted by: Kadoozy
The majority of the people that liked Reach were the ones that were terrible at Halo 2 and 3. So naturally, they are going to like a game they are good at; I use good pretty lightly of course because anyone could have been good at Reach. The skill gap was ridiculously low and it added so many more random factors to the gameplay compared to the original three.

Look, there are some very valid criticisms of Reach, chiefly the campaign. Insulting those who liked the game, however, is not even remotely constructive. We should attack each other's arguments, not each other period.

  • 12.05.2012 9:39 AM PDT

Who am I?

mah twitter


Posted by: a squiggly apple

Posted by: Make117
I understand you liked it most but it doesn't mean it's the "pinnacle of Halo".


It had the map 'pinnacle' on it and that certainly wasn't the pinnacle of Halo.
lol, quite the opposite really..

  • 12.05.2012 9:41 AM PDT

iPhone 4S 64GB Black.

Because people think it's cool, and because people like the attention of internet forums, especially on The Flood. Although, there're people who genuinely dislike the game.

It sure wasn't as good as Halo 3, but it was definitely better than some of its competition, such as Battlefield and Call of Duty. Those games don't have a built in map editor, such customisable modes, or as great a campaign.

Refer to my first point, that's your answer. I see no other explanation. And I definitely prefer it to Halo 4.

  • 12.05.2012 9:42 AM PDT

Posted by: Changsta inc
Racism isn't wrong if it's funny.


Posted by: TheUseless0ne
Because people don't like varied, interesting, and balanced gameplay.

THANK YOU!!!

  • 12.05.2012 9:42 AM PDT

"Wake me...when you need me."

I thought Reach was excellent.

  • 12.05.2012 9:43 AM PDT

Posted by: Hylebos
The world is not so black and white Burrito.
I never said it was. But that is the base. Is it a fun game? If yes, critique but enjoy. If not, why -blam!- about it so much and make sure, over and over again, for a long period of time, that everybody possible knows how much you personally believe a game is 'bad?' These people call it 'bad,' but they do so in ignorance.

it doesn't bother me too much if someone gives a game a different score than I would assign it.Nor me. What bugs me are contradictions in what's said and what's done, and when people don't just say something bad, but say it loudly and over and over and over.


Burrito, quite honestly, if it's an opinion that catches on with the rest of the community, it's not because that opinion is a virus, it's because people agree with it when presented with the evidence that backs that conclusion up. It's not like this is some huge conspiracy by a few elite players to sour the thoughts and minds of the impressionable and mindless masses. It's just gamers expressing their thoughts, and others agreeing and sometimes disagreeing with them.
I've gotta say man, I think that's a fairly childish viewpoint. I exaggerate so do your 'lol' all you want. The point is, people loved the game, a few people with a ton of alt accounts come around and bash on the same two or three aspects of the game and argue how these two or three things mean the game as a whole is horrible. They do it over and over again, and yes I know this for a fact. People can hear other opinions and come to agree. But that was most certainly not the case. It was a case of repetition. Like, North Korea pounding how America is evil over and over and over into everybody's heads and they can't get away from it. Do they believe it because they were presented with evidence? No, it was simply the overwhelming amount of negative.

People shouldn't have to put a disclaimer that says "...But I had an Iota of fun when I played this particular part of the game so really everything I'm nitpicking about probably doesn't matter!" whenever they discuss flaws. The real problem seems to be that you care too much about people's ultimate conclusions, you really shouldn't let other people decide your happiness.My happiness is fine. I enjoy the game. I recognize flaws but still recognize it's a fantastic game. The devolution of the community comes from those that make those bold conclusions off scant evidence and the likes, molding the masses because they're gullible.

  • 12.05.2012 9:45 AM PDT

1. Weapon bloom inconsistencies
2. Weapon loadouts
3. Armor ability loadouts
4. slow movement speed and low jump height - very unlike the Halo we've been introduced to and loved
5. Hitboxes were big
6. No ranked
7. Many maps promoted camping and abuse of armor abilities


Points 1, 2, 3, and 5 are important factors for FPS games, and specifically for the Halo series since it had originally boasted equal opportunity and balance.

Points 4, 6, and 7 detract from the gaming experience in general.

  • 12.05.2012 9:46 AM PDT

Expressing my strong liberal views without shame. Favorite quotes below:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
"One starts to live when he can live outside himself."

- Albert Einstein


Posted by: Swamptik
I thought Reach was excellent.

Which part?

-The uninteresting characters cut and paste from generic action flicks?
-The complete ineptitude of the UNSC in the Battle of Reach?
-The complete ineptitude of the Office of Naval Intelligence in the Battle of Reach?
-The destruction of established canon pre-Reach?

Take your pick.

  • 12.05.2012 9:47 AM PDT