First Ever Post: The heavy divide in fans between Halo Reach and Halo 4 is predictable... but the reasons are still disturbing. I'd like to first state that I've beaten the campaign and extensively played the multiplayer of Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2, Halo 3 & ODST, Halo Reach, AND Halo 4 and that every single one of these games are ambitious and great fun in their own ways for their own reasons. Nonetheless, I will admit that I favor Halo Reach (and perhaps Halo 2 if I'm feeling nostalgic). I feel like my reasons are simple, but by contrast, the reasons I'm hearing for why Halo 4 is superior to Reach are ludicrously trivial and not conducive to actually having fun: [quote]"Halo 4 prevails because it's AR and shotgun are good"[/quote] [quote]"I enjoy Halo 4 more then Reach. I was never a big fan of bloom."[/quote] [quote]"Reach is worse. A few noobs think otherwise, but the mass number of online players kinda kill their view."[/quote] Really? A couple weapons function slightly more to your liking? It looks a little too bright? Everyone else is jumping off a cliff, so why don't you? Pff. What an idiot I was! And here I was judging both games on ALL their differences! Like the major balance changes of a different control scheme, removing damage de-scoping, and adding first-person killcams! The addition of a third variant of weapons, orbital drops, and customizable loadouts and perks! A brand new shift of focus in Slayer from kills to points in which victory is based on specifically how you performed in a match as opposed to the bodycount you racked up! And I haven't even touched on the significantly more complex differences in the campaign modes yet! You're telling me my judgment could be easily reduced to: "Not as much bloom as Reach = Better than Reach"? Phew! That's a lot off my mind! Why was I trying to be fair and even-handed to both titles when I could just throw up my hands and go "Shotguns are better! Argument over!" ...Oh yeah. Cause that would make me a jackass. Seriously people, where's the reasonable give and take? Why can't we say we like both? As far as I can tell, Halo: CE was, if nothing else, a landmark game. Halo 2 improved upon it in nearly every way. Halo 3 commanded some impressive new features at an occasional expense. And Halo Reach was the final risky refinement to the classic formula, though with it's own hits and misses, it successfully encapsulated the over-arching theme: to go out with a bang. Halo 4 is... different. There's a distinctly different driver behind the wheels and the whole game feels more like a caricature of the Halo series than an actual installment. Nonetheless it is still a very good game in it's own right, plainly made by the fans who played it. I will gladly concede to that much, but I'm sick of hearing about some comparatively miniscule detail of the game summarizing the entire reason why it's superior or inferior. I positively HATE the Halo 4 armor aesthetic because they look like a naked dummy just superglued tuperware containers to themselves and then spraypainted themselves in solid colors. All of the spartans look like they have vestigial wings for -blam!-'s sake! Even so, I'm not stupid enough to present that as THE REASON Reach is better than Halo 4. Exercise some fair judgment people. And while you're at it, remember: First and foremost, video games exist to provide entertainment. If you don't know this or want to accept this, you should not be playing Halo in the first place... let alone video games.