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?

The Song Of Nephilim

Xenoblade <3

I enjoyed Reach a lot.

  • 12.05.2012 9:48 AM PDT

*Silloin kun näyttää siltä että ei ole mitään hätää niin tulee hälytyskellojen soida
*Neuvostoliiton hajoaminen oli vain showta
*Saksa on löytänyt uuden tavan vallata Eurooppa ilman yhtäkään panssarivaunua

Halo: Reach was awesome.

  • 12.05.2012 9:48 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

ZomG, for those people wanting to know everything, this is not my Main tag anymore, (McCrash IS for Posting on B.net)

Original XbL Gamertag, zeDutchKreatiVz, as you guessed, Im Dutch/from Holland/Amsterdam.

...Also wTf happened to Halo.......*sighs*


Posted by: TomoK12
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.


personally, I liked BF3 better as a shooter.

  • 12.05.2012 9:50 AM PDT

iPhone 4S 64GB Black.


Posted by: Drunky1993
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.

Despite how amazing Firefight, Custom Games, Forge and Campaign are in Halo Reach, you'd blindly call the game bad because you disliked a few things in the multiplayer mode?

  • 12.05.2012 9:50 AM PDT

Who am I?

mah twitter


Posted by: TomoK12

Posted by: Drunky1993
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.

Despite how amazing Firefight, Custom Games, Forge and Campaign are in Halo Reach, you'd blindly call the game bad because you disliked a few things in the multiplayer mode?
That's more than just "few things". In fact, I can't really think of many things that effect gameplay more than those listed above. Movement speed and enormous hitboxes don't mean anything to you?

  • 12.05.2012 9:53 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: TomoK12

Posted by: Drunky1993
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.

Despite how amazing Firefight, Custom Games, Forge and Campaign are in Halo Reach, you'd blindly call the game bad because you disliked a few things in the multiplayer mode?

Reach did not have an amazing campaign.

It really did not.

  • 12.05.2012 9:54 AM PDT


Posted by: TomoK12

Posted by: Drunky1993
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.

Despite how amazing Firefight, Custom Games, Forge and Campaign are in Halo Reach, you'd blindly call the game bad because you disliked a few things in the multiplayer mode?


I'm a multiplayer kind of player. I always focus on the multiplayer. It's the part that keeps me playing for years.

On the subject of custom games, I almost never played them in Reach, though I had my more than fair share of customs in Halo 3. This is ironic considering that I thought forge in Reach was fantastic and was a major upgrade to Halo 3's. Firefight was alright, but there was no longevity in it for me. In the end, the mechanical aspects that encompass a FPS are what draws me to the game. If I don't like how the game plays and feels, i'm not going to play the game's alternative modes.

  • 12.05.2012 9:55 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

ZomG, for those people wanting to know everything, this is not my Main tag anymore, (McCrash IS for Posting on B.net)

Original XbL Gamertag, zeDutchKreatiVz, as you guessed, Im Dutch/from Holland/Amsterdam.

...Also wTf happened to Halo.......*sighs*


Posted by: TomoK12

Posted by: Drunky1993
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.

Despite how amazing Firefight, Custom Games, Forge and Campaign are in Halo Reach, you'd blindly call the game bad because you disliked a few things in the multiplayer mode?


Firefight & amazing in the same sentence isn't right yuKnow.

Imo, reach was bad for Halo standards.
mediocre at best for a shooter.

  • 12.05.2012 9:56 AM PDT

RIP Logan ~B.B.


Posted by: Make117

Posted by: TomoK12

Posted by: Drunky1993
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.

Despite how amazing Firefight, Custom Games, Forge and Campaign are in Halo Reach, you'd blindly call the game bad because you disliked a few things in the multiplayer mode?
That's more than just "few things". In fact, I can't really think of many things that effect gameplay more than those listed above. Movement speed and enormous hitboxes don't mean anything to you?

Considering in Halo 2 bullets magically bent toward opponents head, and that Halo 3 had inconsistently placed hitboxes between player models, I see no reason to find issue with Reach's any more than previous Halo games. Personally, I think the hitbox inconsistency in Halo 3 was the only hitbox issue worth complaining out in the entire series.

  • 12.05.2012 9:57 AM PDT

I am a pharmaceutical scientist. I received my Masters degree in Pharmaceutics from the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia in 2010, after working as a Pharmacist for 4 years. I currently work in King of Prussia, PA, and focus on the analytical chemistry of small molecule APIs. My clients include some of the most well known big pharma companies in the world.

Reach was very vanilla for me. The game was a "streamlined" version of past Halo titles. Seemed to have most of the bugs worked out but there was nothing too innovative or fresh about it. I personally did not like Bungie's choice of trying to move away from an "arena" style shooter. Just my opinion.

What I do find funny though, is a lot of kids on here complain that elements of Reach were "broken" lolololol. I don't think they truly know what that term means. Basically complain about an aspect you don't like and if other people agree with this complaint, then the game is deemed "broken". Kinda like armor lock. Bungie repeatedly stated how it worked, and that it was working as intended, but was deemed "broken" by users because they subjectively decided it was a bad feature. Bad? Yes. Broken? No, not by a mile.

I also felt the campaign was well done, but the story was forgettable.

[Edited on 12.05.2012 10:05 AM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 10:02 AM PDT

iPhone 4S 64GB Black.


Posted by: Drunky1993

Posted by: TomoK12

Posted by: Drunky1993
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.

Despite how amazing Firefight, Custom Games, Forge and Campaign are in Halo Reach, you'd blindly call the game bad because you disliked a few things in the multiplayer mode?


I'm a multiplayer kind of player. I always focus on the multiplayer. It's the part that keeps me playing for years.

On the subject of custom games, I almost never played them in Reach, though I had my more than fair share of customs in Halo 3. This is ironic considering that I thought forge in Reach was fantastic and was a major upgrade to Halo 3's. Firefight was alright, but there was no longevity in it for me. In the end, the mechanical aspects that encompass a FPS are what draws me to the game. If I don't like how the game plays and feels, i'm not going to play the game's alternative modes.

Well, you cannot call the game terrible just because you dislike multiplayer. The only thing you've listed that I can see affecting other game modes is; "Hitboxes were big". However, I thought the hitboxes in Halo 3 were even worse than in Reach, I cannot complain about that. And besides, I can't see how that'd affect campaign or firefight much at all.

  • 12.05.2012 10:03 AM PDT


Posted by: Obi Wan Stevobi

Posted by: Make117

Posted by: TomoK12

Posted by: Drunky1993
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.

Despite how amazing Firefight, Custom Games, Forge and Campaign are in Halo Reach, you'd blindly call the game bad because you disliked a few things in the multiplayer mode?
That's more than just "few things". In fact, I can't really think of many things that effect gameplay more than those listed above. Movement speed and enormous hitboxes don't mean anything to you?

Considering in Halo 2 bullets magically bent toward opponents head, and that Halo 3 had inconsistently placed hitboxes between player models, I see no reason to find issue with Reach's any more than previous Halo games. Personally, I think the hitbox inconsistency in Halo 3 was the only hitbox issue worth complaining out in the entire series.


halo 2 was an abomination when it came to the bullet mag and hitbox sizes.

Halo 3's hit registration inconsistencies? I've played over 12,000 games of Halo 3 and the only thing to note that is worth complaining about are the "bloodshots" you'd encounter more than enough in multiplayer. Bloodshots being sniper shots to the head that do not register. But even that, in my opinion, is a far cry from something being worth giving Halo 3 a bad name for.

  • 12.05.2012 10:05 AM PDT


Posted by: Drunky1993
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.
Nothing wrong with the concept of loadouts. Nothing wrong with armor abilities. Hitboxes were fine. Ranked and Social was a bad thing. Bloom was 100% consistent within itself. If you disagree, then you don't understand what the concept means. Using armor abilities is not a bad thing, and if you keep running into campers you're dumb- that isn't the game's fault.
Posted by: Plasma Prestige
Which part?
The part with the fun gameplay and expanded universe.

-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?
Jorge was awesome- best character. Carter was fine though his voice-actor was meh. Jun was fine. I disliked Kat. Emile was really cliche.

A problem with ONI and the UNSC is a problem with canon in general- not the game itself.

Halo: Reach did not 'destroy' canon. The Autumn being on Reach was a retro-fix. The only other problem involved dates published outside the game itself.

Otherwise? Story was fine, and gave a look into Reach was was awesome.

  • 12.05.2012 10:05 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

ZomG, for those people wanting to know everything, this is not my Main tag anymore, (McCrash IS for Posting on B.net)

Original XbL Gamertag, zeDutchKreatiVz, as you guessed, Im Dutch/from Holland/Amsterdam.

...Also wTf happened to Halo.......*sighs*


Posted by: TomoK12

Posted by: Drunky1993

Posted by: TomoK12

Posted by: Drunky1993
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.

Despite how amazing Firefight, Custom Games, Forge and Campaign are in Halo Reach, you'd blindly call the game bad because you disliked a few things in the multiplayer mode?


I'm a multiplayer kind of player. I always focus on the multiplayer. It's the part that keeps me playing for years.

On the subject of custom games, I almost never played them in Reach, though I had my more than fair share of customs in Halo 3. This is ironic considering that I thought forge in Reach was fantastic and was a major upgrade to Halo 3's. Firefight was alright, but there was no longevity in it for me. In the end, the mechanical aspects that encompass a FPS are what draws me to the game. If I don't like how the game plays and feels, i'm not going to play the game's alternative modes.

Well, you cannot call the game terrible just because you dislike multiplayer. The only thing you've listed that I can see affecting other game modes is; "Hitboxes were big". However, I thought the hitboxes in Halo 3 were even worse than in Reach, I cannot complain about that. And besides, I can't see how that'd affect campaign or firefight much at all.


how were the hitboxes worse in 3? because you actually had to aim right?

and the huge Hbx's in Reach, I complaint about in the first damn game I went in.

  • 12.05.2012 10:06 AM PDT


Posted by: TomoK12

Posted by: Drunky1993

Posted by: TomoK12

Posted by: Drunky1993
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.

Despite how amazing Firefight, Custom Games, Forge and Campaign are in Halo Reach, you'd blindly call the game bad because you disliked a few things in the multiplayer mode?


I'm a multiplayer kind of player. I always focus on the multiplayer. It's the part that keeps me playing for years.

On the subject of custom games, I almost never played them in Reach, though I had my more than fair share of customs in Halo 3. This is ironic considering that I thought forge in Reach was fantastic and was a major upgrade to Halo 3's. Firefight was alright, but there was no longevity in it for me. In the end, the mechanical aspects that encompass a FPS are what draws me to the game. If I don't like how the game plays and feels, i'm not going to play the game's alternative modes.

Well, you cannot call the game terrible just because you dislike multiplayer. The only thing you've listed that I can see affecting other game modes is; "Hitboxes were big". However, I thought the hitboxes in Halo 3 were even worse than in Reach, I cannot complain about that. And besides, I can't see how that'd affect campaign or firefight much at all.


The mechanics of the FPS affect the gameplay in every respect (customs, firefight, multiplayer, campaign). If I don't like the mechanics, I won't enjoy the game and all of its game modes. That's why it's not ironic that I didn't play a lot of customs in Reach. It's because I didn't enjoy how the game played. You can let me have that opinion, can't you?

  • 12.05.2012 10:08 AM PDT

Halo4 is fun, here's why I thought reach sucked

Campaign:Was supposed to be about an epic team of spartans, instead you usualy were partnerd with one of them for like 2 seconds, and oh hey everyone on the team died except jun.

Multiplayer: Boring and slow, AAs had way to much focus in it

Firefight:Maps sucked and it wasn't really survival like in ODST

Forge:Forge world was boring after awhile, should've release more forge world type maps

IMO it fell short of Halo 3 in comparison, Halo 3 is fun but nowhere near Halo 3, and reach was mediocre

  • 12.05.2012 10:08 AM PDT

RIP Logan ~B.B.


Posted by: Drunky1993

Posted by: Obi Wan Stevobi

Posted by: Make117

Posted by: TomoK12

Posted by: Drunky1993
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.

Despite how amazing Firefight, Custom Games, Forge and Campaign are in Halo Reach, you'd blindly call the game bad because you disliked a few things in the multiplayer mode?
That's more than just "few things". In fact, I can't really think of many things that effect gameplay more than those listed above. Movement speed and enormous hitboxes don't mean anything to you?

Considering in Halo 2 bullets magically bent toward opponents head, and that Halo 3 had inconsistently placed hitboxes between player models, I see no reason to find issue with Reach's any more than previous Halo games. Personally, I think the hitbox inconsistency in Halo 3 was the only hitbox issue worth complaining out in the entire series.


halo 2 was an abomination when it came to the bullet mag and hitbox sizes.

Halo 3's hit registration inconsistencies? I've played over 12,000 games of Halo 3 and the only thing to note that is worth complaining about are the "bloodshots" you'd encounter more than enough in multiplayer. Bloodshots being sniper shots to the head that do not register. But even that, in my opinion, is a far cry from something being worth giving Halo 3 a bad name for.

No you are talking latency and packet loss when you talk about bloodshots. Though, that is Reach's greatest improvement over previous Halo games, is the networking and detection model. Anyway, no I was talking about the difference in hitbox location and overlap between Spartans and Elites in Halo 3. Elite hitboxes for the head were lower, and partially shielded by their body hitboxes from behind and sides. They also had a much greater range of motion during animations. That meant that hitboxes were inconsistent between the two player models. I don't take issue with size or position of them, so long as they are the same for everyone. In Halo 3, their size may have been the same, but their behavior and position was different, granting a slight edge to elite players in head-shot dependent games. That is when I find issues in shooters, when something becomes a mechanical advantage for one player over another.

  • 12.05.2012 10:12 AM PDT

Posted by: burritosenior
Posted by: Hylebos
The world is not so black and white Burrito.
I never said it was.
And yet...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....You keep presenting me with Binary Choices.

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.Childish though it may sound, I just think a world where gamers decide for themselves what they believe in is statistically more likely than a world where people can be brainwashed so easily just by visiting a gaming forum.

If a person's opinion can be changed just by hearing the same argument over and over, perhaps that original opinion was not as strong it was thought to have been.

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.Just those people? Is there not anyone else who contributes to this problem?

I have a story to tell you, which perhaps might make the real cause of this "devolution" of the community more obvious to you, because from this discussion, it seems like you might only know of half of the story.

Unfortunately, it's a very long story, and unfortunately reality calls. I have two massive programs due Friday night at Midnight and I want to finish them so that I can sit down and watch the VGAs without having to stress out or fail my classes. As a result I cannot afford to spend several hours doing justice to that story.

I promise you though, when I have time after finals I will write it out, reflect upon what I think, and then share it with you, and perhaps we can all learn something.

  • 12.05.2012 10:16 AM PDT

Well Hyleblas, I look forward to my upcoming revelation then.

  • 12.05.2012 10:18 AM PDT


Posted by: Obi Wan Stevobi

No you are talking latency and packet loss when you talk about bloodshots. Though, that is Reach's greatest improvement over previous Halo games, is the networking and detection model. Anyway, no I was talking about the difference in hitbox location and overlap between Spartans and Elites in Halo 3. Elite hitboxes for the head were lower, and partially shielded by their body hitboxes from behind and sides. They also had a much greater range of motion during animations. That meant that hitboxes were inconsistent between the two player models. I don't take issue with size or position of them, so long as they are the same for everyone. In Halo 3, their size may have been the same, but their behavior and position was different, granting a slight edge to elite players in head-shot dependent games. That is when I find issues in shooters, when something becomes a mechanical advantage for one player over another.


Yes I will definitely grant you that. Elites had slight advantage over spartans. But still, never in one game did I stop and think about the modeling of spartans and Elites. I felt equally vulnerable to both sides and vice versa. In a sense, for me at least, it felt easier to headshot elites from the front, so it was a trade-off of sorts. And if i'm just delusional, then I'll admit I have bias towards Halo 3. I still retain my position that Halo 3 is one of the most clean Halo games to date. All games have their faults. I just think this one had the least of them (hence why I played it so much).

I didn't play much Swat because what that playlist entails never enthralled me. One shot kills aren't what Halo is about. It was also one of the most inconsistent playlists in the genre. I feel that this playlist kind of shined on all of Halo 3's cons.

  • 12.05.2012 10:23 AM PDT

Posted by: burritosenior
Well Hyleblas, I look forward to my upcoming revelation then.
Mebbie I'll turn it into a 5 year thread? We'll see ;)

  • 12.05.2012 10:24 AM PDT

Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"

Simple, when it comes to Halo, many fans judge the game by what they think it should be. If the game falls short of that, it's terrible or "not Halo". Because you cannot please everyone, every single Halo sequal has been trashed in this fashion. Reach caught a lot of hell because out of all Halo sequals it made the largest departures to the current forumula. From a design standpoint, there are very few issues with the game, and much of the hate was completely subjective.

Personally, I thought Reach took steps towards a necessary refresher for the series. It fell short in some ways, and nailed it in others. The series was getting terribly monotonous from a MP gameplay perspective, but the issue at large is that (regardless of how much they ask for "change") many FPS gamers really just want more of the same. It is unfortunate that Bungie was done with Halo at that point, because I would have interested to see how they would have refined/furthered the changes made with Reach moving forward.

This is why (not trying to start a flame war) COD is so insanely popular, it has focused on the same, simple FPS gameplay for 6 games. I'd bet anyone dollars to donuts that if Activision made any tangible changes to gameplay, the fan reaction would be very similar to how people reacted to Reach.

[Edited on 12.05.2012 10:37 AM PST]

  • 12.05.2012 10:33 AM PDT


Posted by: SweetTRIX
Simple, when it comes to Halo, many fans judge the game by what they think it should be. If the game falls short of that, it's terrible or "not Halo". Because you cannot please everyone, every single Halo sequal has been trashed in this fashion. Reach caught a lot of hell because out of all Halo sequals it made the largest departures to the current forumula. From a design standpoint, there are very few issues with the game, and much of the hate was completely subjective.

Personally, I thought Reach took steps towards a necessary refresher for the series. It fell short in some ways, and nailed it in others. The series was getting terribly monotonous from a MP gameplay perspective, but the issue at large is that (regardless of how much they ask for "change") many FPS gamers really just want more of the same. It is unfortunate that Bungie was done with Halo at that point, because I would have interested to see how they would have refined/furthered the changes made with Reach based.

This is why (not trying to start a flame war) COD is so insanely popular, it has focused on the same, simple FPS gameplay for 6 games. I'd be anyone dollars to donuts that if Activision made any tangible changes to gameplay, the fan reaction would be very similar to how people reacted to Reach.


Fresh but familiar. That's what sells, apparently. If the sequels had built off of Halo 3, I'd guess there would be same continuation of popularity that Halo has had from the period of 2001-2010. But not forever. Things come and go, and every game has its prime.

  • 12.05.2012 10:40 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Had fun with reach, especially objective, big team, and invasion. campaign was horrible, even fanboys agree with it. Team slayer was unbearable because of AA's. ObjectIve you only had sprint and something else I think. Bloom was alright since u needed to pace your shots to
Win

  • 12.05.2012 10:44 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Hylebos
Posted by: ArtooFeva
There's also the fact that some people are stupid.
And once the insults come out, that only shows that you don't have the ammo or the patience to defeat someone with logic and reasoning. How unfortunate.


So basically he just spammed all his grenades right?

  • 12.05.2012 11:01 AM PDT