Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Is lolreach the worst Halo game?
  • Subject: Is lolreach the worst Halo game?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Is lolreach the worst Halo game?


Posted by: burritosenior
Halo 2 was the worst in the series. I don't understand the love for that glitch filled, poor art style direction-ful game.


killed any owls lately?

  • 12.25.2012 4:37 PM PDT

Posted by: Octaian

Posted by: Mythical Wolf
Reach is not the worst Halo game. Halo 4 is.


Posted by: Mythical Wolf
I've barely played Halo 4


Hmmm...

lol ... classic win.

  • 12.25.2012 5:33 PM PDT

First in social ranked firefight campaign competitive and ODST goose splatters.
My other account is UrbanTwisticle
20,000+ total matchmade goose splatters

Check out my YouTube Channel

Of the FPS Halo games I liked Halo 2 the least.


The online multiplayer had too many cheaters so I stuck to playing LAN games of Halo CE with the guys at our firehall for most of that games lifespan. Halo was great at keeping our volunteer stations staffed =)

  • 12.28.2012 1:00 PM PDT


Posted by: rookus pls
ODST is poo-poo.


Blasphemy!

  • 12.28.2012 3:52 PM PDT

Posted by: x Foman123 x

Posted by: TH3_AV3NG3R
What house has a rocket pod, has legs, and has a long narrow barrel that probably shoots something powerful?

Sounds like you're describing the lower half of my body, actually.

No Halo 4 is. I am not understanding how people are liking it. Do people like being babied or something?

  • 12.29.2012 4:50 AM PDT

I am the Thorian, known as Species 37 to you people. I am an ancient sentient plant that is fifty thousand years old. My ability to hibernate for thousands of years makes my real age impossible to guess though you are welcome to try.

And so the cycle continues.

People didn't like Halo: Reach, they said it was crap and they went back to Halo 3; now though, people don't like Halo 4 and have gone back to Halo: Reach and now praising it for being a better game than Halo 4.

Just accept the games for what they are. Don't -blam!- about it upon release because chances are you're going to go back to it when Halo 5 is released and you'll think "Huh, actually, Halo 4 wasn't that bad now I think about it".

  • 12.29.2012 5:15 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

That honor now belongs to Halo 4. I didn't think 343i could screw up Halo anymore than Bungie did. But somehow they managed.

  • 12.29.2012 9:46 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Oh GodLike One
Posted by: Mythical Wolf
OT: Reach is not the worst Halo game. Halo 4 is. There is nothing in it that makes me want to play it over and over. The custom game options are unbelievably bad.

Guess your opinion goes against the majority.
In a democracy that means you lose.

But lets check that again;
- Halo 4 at position #2,
- Reach down at #16

There is no other word for reach than disappointment.
- Reach released Sep 2010, December 2 years on, down to #16.
- Halo 3 released Sep 2007, December 2 years on #2.

If you want to compare it to Halo 4 ... yep, reach had fallen further than H4 by this equivalent point in time (even though it sold MANY more initial units).

lolreach.

You can't use a two year time frame because Halo was on a three year release schedule (flagship titles). Of course Halo would maintain a high spot in 2009. It had no competition form other flagship Halo titles. Halo 3 fell to 9th place in Dec. 2010, three months after Reach was released. There isn't any data on how Reach was doing a month after release. The LIVE metrics you linked for Halo 4 aren't even a month old (H4 was released Nov. 6th). Post Feb. 2013 metrics and we'll see if Halo 4 is doing better than Reach.

  • 12.29.2012 10:07 AM PDT
  • gamertag: danr21
  • user homepage:

Yes but its still good.

  • 12.29.2012 2:25 PM PDT

#rubberdingirapids


Posted by: nightspark

Posted by: Oh GodLike One
Posted by: Mythical Wolf
OT: Reach is not the worst Halo game. Halo 4 is. There is nothing in it that makes me want to play it over and over. The custom game options are unbelievably bad.

Guess your opinion goes against the majority.
In a democracy that means you lose.

But lets check that again;
- Halo 4 at position #2,
- Reach down at #16

There is no other word for reach than disappointment.
- Reach released Sep 2010, December 2 years on, down to #16.
- Halo 3 released Sep 2007, December 2 years on #2.

If you want to compare it to Halo 4 ... yep, reach had fallen further than H4 by this equivalent point in time (even though it sold MANY more initial units).

lolreach.

You can't use a two year time frame because Halo was on a three year release schedule (flagship titles). Of course Halo would maintain a high spot in 2009. It had no competition form other flagship Halo titles. Halo 3 fell to 9th place in Dec. 2010, three months after Reach was released. There isn't any data on how Reach was doing a month after release. The LIVE metrics you linked for Halo 4 aren't even a month old (H4 was released Nov. 6th). Post Feb. 2013 metrics and we'll see if Halo 4 is doing better than Reach.


Why does population make a game good? Tell me this, because this is what it looks like these two posts are trying to say.

OT: 4 is NOT good for it's multiplayer, but the Campaign isn't that bad, the first four missions being fantastic. The forge and customs are a letdown in comparison to Reach, but they were hardly mind blowing in Reach anyway.
4>Reach

  • 12.29.2012 5:02 PM PDT

Posted by: Cheeseoid
Why does population make a game good? Tell me this, because this is what it looks like these two posts are trying to say.

Guessing there is a LOT in life you have yet to experience?
Lets try a couple of reasons;

#1 Statistics.
- People playing a game kinda indicates they like it.
- More people playing a game indicates that more people prefer it.
- Anything else IS JUST YOUR OPINION


#2 Commerce.
- Supply & Demand, demand causes prices to rise.
- People demand a good product, will pay more for one they consider better
- reach is currently 40% less than halo 3
(people will pay more for the previous version which is also 3 years older)

  • 12.29.2012 7:30 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Oh GodLike One
Posted by: Cheeseoid
Why does population make a game good? Tell me this, because this is what it looks like these two posts are trying to say.

Guessing there is a LOT in life you have yet to experience?
Lets try a couple of reasons;

#1 Statistics.
- People playing a game kinda indicates they like it.
- More people playing a game indicates that more people prefer it.
- Anything else IS JUST YOUR OPINION


#2 Commerce.
- Supply & Demand, demand causes prices to rise.
- People demand a good product, will pay more for one they consider better
- reach is currently 40% less than halo 3
(people will pay more for the previous version which is also 3 years older)

Yeah, try posting what the standard editions cost. They actually show what the product is worth. Reach is actually 40% higher than Halo 3. Using legendary editions from different vendors makes you look like a dumb ass. Of course that isn't anything new for you now, is it?

More people play Reach than Halo 3. So by your logic, Reach is a better game because more people prefer it. You fail (which is like a theme for you) to take into account that the newest game will always have a higher population than the older one.

And in case anyone is wondering here's Halo 4's price.

[Edited on 12.30.2012 9:26 AM PST]

  • 12.30.2012 9:12 AM PDT

Posted by: Yamadog27
Opinions are like butholes. Everyone's got one, nobody wants to hear about it.

Nope, CE is.

  • 12.30.2012 10:51 AM PDT


Posted by: Suikoden

Posted by: CrunchyBoi23

Posted by: Casselt

Posted by: boomdeyadah
Posted by: Mikelp_1
Halo 4 is the worst. Reach is teh best.

  • 12.31.2012 2:22 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2