People like you are the ones that ruin halo for everyone else. Reach is awful and Halo 4 is going to be awful.

Thinking that everyone else thinks just like you... You just showed me how smart and mature you are.

Don't get angry about it. They're honestly just a bunch of bandwagon idiots, the same thing happened with every other mainstream Halo game.

H4 is going to be amazing. No more debate about starting weapons... you'll simply design your own loadouts.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SuperCrack Thinking that everyone else thinks just like you... You just showed me how smart and mature you are.[/quote] The way I see it everyone's opinions should be treated equally, the only problem is that my opinion is more equal than yours is.

OP is a retard.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] the pib H4 is going to be amazing.[/quote]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Neutralism [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SuperCrack Thinking that everyone else thinks just like you... You just showed me how smart and mature you are.[/quote] The way I see it everyone's opinions should be treated equally, the only problem is that my opinion is more equal than yours is.[/quote] Oh my god, yes.

Well not one part of that post was correct. 0/10 Carry on.

@guy above , give me your logic then.Explain to me how it is not how I say. Halo 4 is a big halo reach rehash. I had hoped that people like you would leave this place now that the new installment is on the way... [Edited on 10.06.2012 7:39 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SuperCrack @guy above , give me your logic then.Explain to me how it is not how I say. Halo 4 is a big halo reach rehash. I had hoped that people like you would leave this place now that the new installment is on the way... [/quote] I think the people you are looking for are over at waypoint, you won't find them here because this place has been cleaned up.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SuperCrack @guy above , give me your logic then.Explain to me how it is not how I say. Halo 4 is a big halo reach rehash. [/quote] The movement speed alone changes everything. With all that they've added, it's far from anything even resembling a "rehash". CoD would be a rehash. The transition from Halo: Reach to Halo 4, not so much. Halo 4 is no more of a rehash of Reach than Halo 2 and Halo 3 was of CE by your definition of a rehash. In either case, your assertion is invalid. [Edited on 10.06.2012 7:48 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Neutralism People like you are the ones that ruin halo for everyone else. Reach is awful and Halo 4 is going to be awful. [/quote] Yep

-1/10

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] The Ruckus 2010 Halo 4 is no more of a rehash of Reach than Halo 2 and Halo 3 was of CE by your definition of a rehash. In either case, your assertion is invalid.[/quote]

The big reason Reach got so much hate is because Bungie mainly changed the things that the general population didn't have a problem with, not the fact that it was just a drastic change from H3; Halo 2 was a drastic change from Halo 1, but its population didn't dwindle down to a laughable number within a year. They added random mechanics such as bloom and didn't see bullets flying in random directions as a problem to competitive players, etc... They also added annoying mechanics such as movement and aim acceleration, making movement and aim somewhat groggy and awkward. Overall, they took the good, fast-paced action that was in the previous Halo games and slowed it down, immensely. While Halo 4's default settings isn't the ideal competitive atmosphere, at least 343 is able to recognize all of the incredibly huge faults that Reach had, which contributed to its slow and random gameplay, and change it. They took out bloom on most guns (and made it hardly affect the ones that do have it), restored speedy/smooth movement, put less stress on armor ability use/dependence, etc... It's not going to be the best, but it will be a hell of a lot better than Reach.

Yeah because Halo 2 did not add new major gameplay elements like -boarding vehicles -destructible vehicles -dual wielding -COMPLETELY overhauled sandbox(not saying tha was good or bad) -modernized meele system with lunge and lock on making meele a huge part of the game Yeah I think it was no simple rehash. Halo 3? Ofc it was a rehash and I agree. What radical did it do? -very small weapons changes compared to halo2 -more meele damage(even more emphasize in melee) -and equipment ... [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] The Ruckus 2010 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SuperCrack @guy above , give me your logic then.Explain to me how it is not how I say. Halo 4 is a big halo reach rehash. ] [/quote] The movement speed alone changes everything. With all that they've added, it's far from anything even resembling a "rehash". CoD would be a rehash. The transition from Halo: Reach to Halo 4, not so much. Halo 4 is no more of a rehash of Reach than Halo 2 and Halo 3 was of CE by your definition of a rehash. In either case, your assertion is invalid.[/quote] When they gave you bloom there was no way back. You either keep bloom or remove it. Instead community asked for the reduction of it during beta. [b]When bloom got reduced , it became not so significant in some ranges. In result you can ignore it and still get the shots sometimes while other times he shots wouldn't land. If they bloom was higher it would lead to more consistency in the long run. Spam and you miss , pace and you land. There wouldn't be cases of spamming and still hitting. Counter strike is a very example of how REAL BLOOM helps to add skill gap in an FPS game. When they made it clean Bloom was there to stay, community should have asked for MORE bloom , not less.[/b] About the speed.They said they wanted it to feel more like the first halo. What if they envisioned a slower, more strategic pace of play focused on ranged encounters (bloom fits that) instead of fast and mindless call of duty action?(not saying halo 3 is that) Just saying that you can look things by different angles when you at not stuck up on previous games' gameplays. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Mikelp_1 The big reason Reach got so much hate is because Bungie mainly changed the things that the general population didn't have a problem with, not the fact that it was just a drastic change from H3; Halo 2 was a drastic change from Halo 1, but its population didn't dwindle down to a laughable number within a year. They added random mechanics such as bloom and didn't see bullets flying in random directions as a problem to competitive players, etc... They also added annoying mechanics such as movement and aim acceleration, making movement and aim somewhat groggy and awkward. Overall, they took the good, fast-paced action that was in the previous Halo games and slowed it down, immensely. While Halo 4's default settings isn't the ideal competitive atmosphere, at least 343 is able to recognize all of the incredibly huge faults that Reach had, which contributed to its slow and random gameplay, and change it. They took out bloom on most guns (and made it hardly affect the ones that do have it), restored speedy/smooth movement, put less stress on armor ability use/dependence, etc... It's not going to be the best, but it will be a hell of a lot better than Reach. [/quote] [Edited on 10.06.2012 9:50 PM PDT]

Gah, one of those AR kids. I concur with your thoughts on bloom though. [Edited on 10.06.2012 9:58 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SuperCrack [b]When bloom got reduced , it became not so significant in some ranges. In result you can ignore it and still get the shots sometimes while other times he shots wouldn't land. If they bloom was higher it would lead to more consistency in the long run. Spam and you miss , pace and you land. There wouldn't be cases of spamming and still hitting. Counter strike is a very example of how REAL BLOOM helps to add skill gap in an FPS game. When they made it clean Bloom was there to stay, community should have asked for MORE bloom , not less.[/b] [/quote] And with this, I'm convinced that you are trolling. I'm not even going to put forth an effort to explain why this logic is ass-backwards because there were threads upon threads explaining this back in 2010. Bottom line is, Reach was majorly disliked because the game fell apart at high-level competition due to its faulty mechanics; not because Bungie was "pioneering" new ideas for the series. I've never been against new ideas, so long as they don't break the skill gap. [Edited on 10.06.2012 10:18 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] The Ruckus 2010 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SuperCrack [b]When bloom got reduced , it became not so significant in some ranges. In result you can ignore it and still get the shots sometimes while other times he shots wouldn't land. If they bloom was higher it would lead to more consistency in the long run. Spam and you miss , pace and you land. There wouldn't be cases of spamming and still hitting. Counter strike is a very example of how REAL BLOOM helps to add skill gap in an FPS game. When they made it clean Bloom was there to stay, community should have asked for MORE bloom , not less.[/b] [/quote] And with this, I'm convinced that you are trolling. I'm not even going to put forth an effort to explain why this logic is ass-backwards because there were threads upon threads explaining this back in 2010. Bottom line is, Reach was majorly disliked because the game fell apart at high-level competition due to its faulty mechanics; not because Bungie was "pioneering" new ideas for the series. I've never been against new ideas, so long as they don't break the skill gap.[/quote] "Majorly disliked because the game fell apart at high-level competition" sounds like an oxymoron to me, by definition "high-level competition" is something that not enough people participate in to attribute a "major dislike" of the game to those players. As fashionable as it is to bash Reach on the forums, fact is it was a major success, beating sales of every Halo title except for H3 (which it would have absolutely surpassed if not for the concurrent release of Black Ops) and earning A's from every single game reviewer. How many players it retained on Xbox Live compared to other games released later is hardly the most important measure of its success.

1: Just because they wanted it to feel more like Halo CE doesn't mean they actually succeeded in doing so. 2: Fast paced =/= Call of Duty pace. Halo 2 and 3 were fast paced, yet had shield systems and slower kill times than CoD. Reach, however, is the slowest Halo game to date. And [i]you're[/i] the one with no views at different angles. Hmmm, how could groggy movement and aiming mechanics be a bad thing? Movement acceleration trashes quick changes in direction, which trashes strafing, which is a vital part of movement-based combat because half of the skill in playing Halo is being able to dodge bullets whilst you are hitting other opponents. The end result is not that of a strategic game of chess... 3: More bloom still generates many lucky circumstances and promotes unnecessary, class based combat (combat based upon decisions mindlessly made outside the game). Bloom at its core just makes the game awkward, slow, and random/luck-based, which isn't approved of in a [b]skill[/b]-based shooter; how much skill is involved in winning a game of heads-or-tails? You're really not worth arguing beyond this point. You really should at least be somewhat decent at Halo if you want to make arguments based upon what competitive Halo gameplay is and should be like.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] the pib "Majorly disliked because the game fell apart at high-level competition" sounds like an oxymoron to me, by definition "high-level competition" is something that not enough people participate in to attribute a "major dislike" of the game to those players.[/quote] [i]Sigh...[/i] Just because a game really falls apart at high-level competition doesn't mean the effects aren't felt at the casual level. If the mechanics are bad, they're bad. [quote]As fashionable as it is to bash Reach on the forums, fact is it was a major success, beating sales of every Halo title except for H3 (which it would have absolutely surpassed if not for the concurrent release of Black Ops)[/quote] It was a success only financially, which doesn't matter to the gamer. The game was bad, so it lost a massive portion of its audience barely months into its life cycle. You can't argue that. [quote]and earning A's from every single game reviewer.[/quote] This is where your logic really falls apart. You're assuming that game reviewers are credible. Most of these games are reviewed either prior to, or just after the game's release. This makes the scores very heavily influenced by the hype machine. A true "A" level game doesn't lose the amount of population Reach lost in the short amount of time it lost it over. Review scores don't mean anything. A lot of good games get bad scores, and vice-versa. [quote]How many players it retained on Xbox Live compared to other games released later is hardly the most important measure of its success. [/quote] No, but when you lose about half the population in a short time-span, that's usually a pretty good indicator that something is very wrong.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SuperCrack The hating on Halo Reach by players and video game joirnalists is sad and funny.[/quote] lol ... need to update your tag to '[i]BadCrack[/i]'. So WHY is your single opinion to be taken over; - professinal journalist, or - the players who brought the game and then stopped playing within 2 weeks of launch - long term members of bungie.net who think the game bad And then your shallow attempt to direct this hate towards 343. And why is it unfair to blame bungie for this hate?!? Didnt thay write the game - duh? But instead you attempt to blame beta testers ... yeah, cause bungie have no brain and cant tell a good v bad suggestion from a beta tester ... do you honestly believe bungie to be [b]that stupid[/b]??

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] The Ruckus 2010 Just because a game really falls apart at high-level competition doesn't mean the effects aren't felt at the casual level. If the mechanics are bad, they're bad.[/quote] That's a subjective opinion. [quote]It was a success only financially, which doesn't matter to the gamer. The game was bad, so it lost a massive portion of its audience barely months into its life cycle. You can't argue that.[/quote] Young gamers have short attention spans, and COD Black Ops was released just two months after Reach was. Reach's population fell because of its competition, not its quality. [quote] This is where your logic really falls apart. You're assuming that game reviewers are credible. Most of these games are reviewed either prior to, or just after the game's release. This makes the scores very heavily influenced by the hype machine. A true "A" level game doesn't lose the amount of population Reach lost in the short amount of time it lost it over. Review scores don't mean anything. A lot of good games get bad scores, and vice-versa.[/quote] I'd say a 91% score on Metacritic, the average of 99 different reviewers, is a pretty strong indicator of a good game. [quote]No, but when you lose about half the population in a short time-span, that's usually a pretty good indicator that something is very wrong.[/quote] Something like COD:BL releasing two months later, and the best selling game of all time MW3 releasing one year later? Yep. It's so predictable how haters always assume that Reach exists in a vacuum instead of in a marketplace of dozens of other games, a decline in its population is due to its quality and not its competition, and their opinions about the game mechanics are objective facts. [Edited on 10.07.2012 7:53 AM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] the pib Young gamers have short attention spans, and COD Black Ops was released just two months after Reach was. Reach's population fell because of its competition, not its quality. [/quote] A good game will retain its population even if competitors release their own game. Reach was a failure of halo title and the mass sheep population ran to the newer shinier titles once they came out.

[quote] A good game will retain its population even if competitors release their own game.[/quote] Then why isn't Halo 3 more populated than Reach? [Edited on 10.07.2012 8:01 AM PDT]