Yup.

I disagree. Halo 4 has a lot of problems, but not even close to Reach's. Almost every single game mechanic was ruined in Reach. And Halo 4 has been out for a few weeks, with promises of patches in the future that may or may not pan out. Reach derped around for years with NO help at all, and then a pathetic little TU around the end of its life. I am in no way saying Halo 4 is good or quality, but it hasn't caused me even near the frustration lolReach has.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Mythical Wolf Yup.[/quote]

In comparison, yeah it is.

And 343 said they didn't need a Beta... not when you have game-breaking glitches 24/7. Reach had glitches, but not as bad as Halo 4, hell, some of Reach's glitches were funny as hell. "Lightspeed glitch, anyone?" You've pretty much summed it all up, OP. I can't see Halo 4 lasting very long. I've seen one guy at SR 110 in MM today. How is that even possible?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ShadowLordDaniel And 343 said they didn't need a Beta... not when you have game-breaking glitches 24/7.[/quote]It's funny cause there is BXR and double shot in H4.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] boomdeyadah [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ShadowLordDaniel And 343 said they didn't need a Beta... not when you have game-breaking glitches 24/7.[/quote]It's funny cause there is BXR and double shot in H4.[/quote] Bxr was in reach too, but try said so themselves the playlists aren't permanent so it is pretty much a beta. [Edited on 11.23.2012 2:58 PM PST]

You think armor lock should have stayed therefore your opinion is null

This is laughable. Halo 4 takes boggs on reach. This is why there is only 5 active people on the reach forum and thousands on the halo 4 forums.

Called it. All these guys that were whining "REACH SUCKS, THE LAST HALO GAME/HALO 3 WAS BETTER!!!" are now saying that, but about Halo 4. The community never ceases to amaze me.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Vidgameplayer007 Called it. All these guys that were whining "REACH SUCKS, THE LAST HALO GAME/HALO 3 WAS BETTER!!!" are now saying that, but about Halo 4. The community never ceases to amaze me.[/quote] No. People are complaining about Halo 4 not being Halo. People were complaining about Reach not being Halo. People were complaining about Halo 3 due to certain game mechanics. See the difference there? Halo games are becoming less and less "Halo." When people complained about Halo 3, no one said "Halo 3 just doesn't feel like 'Halo.'" However, Reach and Halo 4 are prime examples of people complaining about a Halo game that doesn't feel like "Halo."

Most of these problems are on the surface of gameplay. AKA easily fixed. Reach was broken at it's core. Even after a title update the game was broken. If more than one or two of these issues is still unresolved after 3-4 months after release then you could say reach was better. But ATM it's still too early to tell.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] keeno 111 This is laughable. Halo 4 takes boggs on reach. This is why there is only 5 active people on the reach forum and thousands on the halo 4 forums. [/quote]Halo 4 just came out. Halo Reach came out two years ago. Obviously it'll have more people on the forums

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ShadowLordDaniel And 343 said they didn't need a Beta... not when you have game-breaking glitches 24/7. Reach had glitches, but not as bad as Halo 4, hell, some of Reach's glitches were funny as hell.[/quote] H4 main [i]glitch[/i] was the decision to use the crap reach engine. 343 had to make a choice, wait an extra 2 years and watch the halo brand fade ... or go quick by using the reach engine. Wrong choice. Done further damage to the Halo brand ... reach delivered the mortal wound, looks like reach2.0 could now finish the job. Kinda funny how reach had a huge dive in online numbers within the first two weeks of launch ... why did they think reach2.0 would be any better.

You pretty much nailed it. I mainly play Spartan Ops in Halo 4, its really fun. Im not playing much multiplayer untill stuff gets fixed. Hell team slayer on Boneyard was more balanced than Halo 4.

Funny. I remember when I enjoyed the reach forum. Now it's just full of -blam!-, and the only active users are generally full of -blam!-. I mourn thee, bungie.net. Well, back to trolling on equestrian forums. [Edited on 11.25.2012 9:45 AM PST]

Called it back when Halo 4 was announced. I -blam!- called it.

I told you so.

As far as core gameplay goes, Halo 4 is better. However, it's buried under a mountain of crap that puts post-TU Reach well ahead of it. Multiplayer-wise, of course. Halo 4 dumps all over Reach for single-player. Since I hold single-player to be of higher importance than multiplayer, I still hold Halo 4 above Reach. Fortunately most of the issues in Halo 4's multiplayer are fairly easily fixable (not sure if netcode can be adjusted post-launch, though, which is a huge factor) so the potential is still there. Right now though it's a mess, which is why I'm not a H4 tryhard at the moment. [Edited on 11.25.2012 12:19 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] faceripper v2 Most of these problems are on the surface of gameplay. AKA easily fixed. Reach was broken at it's core. Even after a title update the game was broken. If more than one or two of these issues is still unresolved after 3-4 months after release then you could say reach was better. But ATM it's still too early to tell.[/quote] This -blam!- is trufax. [Edited on 11.25.2012 1:28 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] noobslayer957 Funny. I remember when I enjoyed the reach forum. Now it's just full of -blam!-, and the only active users are generally full of -blam!-. I mourn thee, bungie.net. Well, back to trolling on equestrian forums. [/quote][quote]I remember when I enjoyed the reach forum.[/quote][quote]enjoyed the reach forum.[/quote]wat

Yeah, I agree with The Ruckus 2010 and the OP on the multiplayer, it is covered in crap. I can't take the same opinion with you(Ruckus) on the campaign, though. I felt Halo 4, while it was visually stunning, didn't present the true Halo feel that I had gotten in the previous games. Which, I suppose, is to be expected with the addition of a new developer and new story. I have to ask you: What makes a Halo campaign good? I got a feeling of mystery and excitement when I played Halo: CE. In Halo 2, I felt that the game was about protecting Earth while trying to defeat the Covenant while you play as a general bad-ass that you gotten to know as the Master Chief in Halo CE. Halo 3, very clearly had the same feeling as in Halo 2, with the added incentive "Finish the Fight!" Halo 3 ODST was more of a mysterious/ominous game where you tried to learn the whereabouts of your squad. This was the first game that you weren't the Chief. Halo Reach: You are still not the Chief, and you know Reach falls. I didn't have any real incentive to be completely invested in the campaign. Even if it was not my favorite, I still had fun playing it. Halo 4... When I played it, the beginning felt like Halo: CE. There was that mystery, however the more I played, the less exciting it was. 343i had left most if not all the back-story to it's terminals, which took away some of the mystery for me. Sure, you could go to Waypoint and watch them, but that takes you away from playing the game(even if you read the books,which I had, the game feels it is lacking something). The game's intent was to make the Master Chief feel like a human, rather than a robot. However, the Chief never felt like a robot to me, and the overall message the game left me with was that the Chief is not the bad-ass he once was. So that is my thought on the situation. [Edited on 11.25.2012 1:50 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] BLZL [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] noobslayer957 Funny. I remember when I enjoyed the reach forum. Now it's just full of -blam!-, and the only active users are generally full of -blam!-. I mourn thee, bungie.net. Well, back to trolling on equestrian forums. [/quote][quote]I remember when I enjoyed the reach forum.[/quote][quote]enjoyed the reach forum.[/quote]wat[/quote] Aw, c'mon. It used to be great. Now I go to pretty much any other forum (besides the flood) and reflect on it's ruined glory. EDIT: "Glory" was probably the wrong word for that.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Lashghost Yeah, I agree with The Ruckus 2010 and the OP on the multiplayer, it is covered in crap. I can't take the same opinion with you(Ruckus) on the campaign, though. I felt Halo 4, while it was visually stunning, didn't present the true Halo feel that I had gotten in the previous games. Which, I suppose, is to be expected with the addition of a new developer and new story. I have to ask you: What makes a Halo campaign good? I got a feeling of mystery and excitement when I played Halo: CE. In Halo 2, I felt that the game was about protecting Earth while trying to defeat the Covenant while you play as a general bad-ass that you gotten to know as the Master Chief in Halo CE. Halo 3, very clearly had the same feeling as in Halo 2, with the added incentive "Finish the Fight!" Halo 3 ODST was more of a mysterious/ominous game where you tried to learn the whereabouts of your squad. This was the first game that you weren't the Chief. Halo Reach: You are still not the Chief, and you know Reach falls. I didn't have any real incentive to be completely invested in the campaign. Even if it was not my favorite, I still had fun playing it. Halo 4... When I played it, the beginning felt like Halo: CE. There was that mystery, however the more I played, the less exciting it was. 343i had left most if not all the back-story to it's terminals, which took away some of the mystery for me. Sure, you could go to Waypoint and watch them, but that takes you away from playing the game(even if you read the books,which I had, the game feels it is lacking something). The game's intent was to make the Master Chief feel like a human, rather than a robot. However, the Chief never felt like a robot to me, and the overall message the game left me with was that the Chief is not the bad-ass he once was. So that is my thought on the situation.[/quote] Halo 4 was superior to Halo: Reach's campaign in that the story was more tangible throughout the campaign and you what you were being told in the story was reflected in the campaign itself. In Reach, they had to tell you that the planet was falling, yet you never really saw it on the scale you should have. Even when New Alexandria was being destroyed, I still felt like the Covenant was being pushed back, not vice-versa. Although, New Alexandria came the closest to portraying the desperation of the situation. The story was just bland. There was virtually no characterization of any of the Spartans which left you feeling no impact when they started getting picked off like Whack-A-Moles. The only part of the story that was left was as follows: -Covenant are on Reach -Evacuate civilians -lol u r died The campaign objectives from mission to mission were just boring and unengaging. Nearly every single one ended with you pushing a button. On the subject of button pushing, for the record, I was not a fan of all the button pushing animations in Halo 4. They got annoying fast. The campaign and the objectives therein were vastly more story-driven than Reach. At least, that's how it felt for me. Even the supposed novelty moments like flying the Sabre fell flat to me. The first half of that section seemed forced and entirely unnecessary. No part of the flying section was challenging either. I did Legendary solo for my first playthrough and did not die once in the Sabre. The combat was not engaging (and in fact became rather mind-numbing) because most of the enemy fighters were off fighting your brain-dead allies. It was just a shooting gallery with the occasional "Fox, look out behind you!" moment. Conversely, the Broadsword trench run in Halo 4 was infinitely more exciting than Reach's Sabre section. It felt like there was purpose to doing what you were doing 100% of the time, and the experience was kept interesting with story elements being peppered in there. Examples being Earth appearing as you emerge from slipspace and the dialogue (particularly pertaining to the Didact's ship being unaffected by MAC barrages) exchanges. The music alone added a whole other depth to the scene that Reach's Sabre encounter just could not touch. There was also the issue of the core gameplay. 100% bloom in the campaign in Reach was not fun and was actually frustrating in most cases. Oh, you just popped that Ultra's shields at range? Well too bad because while you were letting your bloom reset he evaded into cover. There was also the slow movement speed that got me. Armor abilities didn't play a big role either (except in that jetpack section, which could have been absent from the game and still had the same effect) which just furthered my dislike for them. In Halo 4, I found a use for jetpack without having it forced on me like in Reach. The AA's were never forced on you in H4. Yeah, they'd be given objective markers, but you could swap them back as soon as you picked them up which made me feel like I had a choice in my gameplay experience. In Reach, if I picked up a jetpack, I'd be sacrificing what little movement speed I had with sprint because your default running speed is pretty slow. In Halo 4, not only is the default movement speed faster, but you also have sprint at all times. The campaign on the whole was simply not memorable for me in the slightest and just felt like a chore as opposed to Halo 4 where I felt like everything I was doing had a distinct purpose within the context of the story. There are threads upon threads describing why the Reach campaign was so ass far better than I can at this current point in time. But that's a brief overview of my opinion on the campaigns. Oh, and I wholeheartedly agree that the H4 backstory should have been explained within the game itself as opposed to relying on the novels and terminals the contents of which you couldn't even view in-game. As somebody who has read the novels, I had a pretty good idea as to what was going on with the backstory and how it related to H4's story, but they should have done more to make those elements apparent to those who have not read the novels or any other media I'm forgetting where the backstory was explained. [Edited on 11.25.2012 5:40 PM PST]

Well Ruckus, I am happy you enjoyed Halo 4. My experience was quite the opposite, but you already know that. There really isn't much more to discuss given that the rest is based on the individual's experiences and preferences.

I will read OP later. But I think Reach is better than H4 it both of their current states.