IMO, they are essentially the same game. I'm talking about MP specifically. If anyone says a single word about campaign I'm just going to mute them. I understand that it's possible for one to like Reach and hate Halo 4, I just find it highly illogical. I'm only making this post because I see many people defend Reach(probably many that bashed it back in the day), and at the same time bash Halo 4. It makes little sense to me. Halo 4 and Reach both share two big things that changed Halo. Halo Reach started it out with loadouts and AA's. Halo 4 took it further by allowing the player to choose a starting weapon. Really, not much of a difference though. If you're going to go the loadout route, you might as well make it as custom as possible(Halo 4). The worst AA of the two games was easily armor lock. I highly doubt many would argue against it. In the grand scheme of things, I'd say armor lock sucked harded than boltshot. After all the annoying game mechanics/sandbox from both games you have maps. Halo Reach and Halo 4 both have extremely terrible maps. Even so, I'd take Haven, Abandon, and Solace or Zealot, Boardwalk and Swordbase any day of the week. I'm just struggling to figure out if people out their genuinely love Reach and hate Halo 4, or if they just like Bungie and want to act like Reach was good. I'm not saying you can't have an opinion, I'm just saying it make's little sense to me why one would like Reach and hate H4.