{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/20/2012 12:10:39 AM
139
Whats your opinion on Halo Reach
From what I've heard people don't think that Halo Reach is a great halo game,but in opinion it is almost as good as halo 3 if not better in some ways.So why do people hate on it so much.
-
[url=http://i.imgur.com/5QsZP.gif?2][b]Zzz....[/b][/url]
-
Why start a new thread on this . . .
-
An ambitious game with seemingly good theoretical concepts that were unfortunately either not fully realized or executed poorly
-
This is Halo: Reach in a nutshell: Good multiplayer game; terrible Halo game.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TheSpiderChief This is Reach in a nutshell: Decent game; terrible Halo game.[/quote]ftfy
-
Horrific amounts of wasted potential.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TheSpiderChief This is Halo: Reach in a nutshell: Good multiplayer game; terrible Halo game.[/quote]Why do you say that.
-
Reasons why it fails: -story pacing -cliche deaths/death contest -plot. Playing as a Spartan III was even worse than it could have been since it's set during a losing battle/surprise invasion (Reach was doomed to fall) and Bungie [i]really[/i] wanted to show it (what I learned from Reach: human vehicles are fragile, frags are nukes, assault rifles take half a clip to kill a Grunt, humanity's best blew themselves up prior to the Covenant attack) -Skirmishers, Brutes, Jackals, Hunters. They are not interesting. They can be frustrating, annoying, and deterrents to playing this abomination -rehashed Firefight style encounters. One encounter in particular, sending in an army of Generals on Lone Wolf (rather than the more canonically consistent Zealots) was pretty pointless since I could easily do that in Firefight. Offering Zealots would have been more worthwhile since they don't appear in Firefight and since it makes sense that the Field Marshal wouldn't just bring 5 of his elite warriors since he's clearly scum. Also, I hate Defend objectives. It's not really defending when you can lose Jun, your allies, and civilians and not get punished for it. Just like how the fireteams are negligible to AI behavior (they don't always stick with you). Oh and let's not forget how killing a civilian has the game send invisible lighting bolts which strike you on the spot. It'd have been more interesting if the surviving marines on Exodus became invincible, completely ignored the Covies, and aggressively pursued you. And goddamn I hate on-rails shooting. Nothing else makes me feel more vulnerable. I'd rather march through all those encounters than ride in a Falcon. [Edited on 10.19.2012 7:52 PM PDT]
-
I thoroughly enjoyed and still do enjoy Reach. Halo 3 was great in it's day, but playing it now feels dated... I prefer Reach. In comparing Halo 3 and Reach, I find advantages and disadvantages in each, but I do prefer Reach and still enjoy playing it. I know many disagree, but it's just my opinion.
-
I loved it and loved AL #justsaying
-
loltroll
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Sliding Ghost Reasons why it fails: -story pacing -cliche deaths/death contest -plot. Playing as a Spartan III was even worse than it could have been since it's set during a losing battle/surprise invasion (Reach was doomed to fall) and Bungie [i]really[/i] wanted to show it (what I learned from Reach: human vehicles are fragile, frags are nukes, assault rifles take half a clip to kill a Grunt, humanity's best blew themselves up prior to the Covenant attack) -Skirmishers, Brutes, Jackals, Hunters. They are not interesting. They can be frustrating, annoying, and deterrents to playing this abomination -rehashed Firefight style encounters. One encounter in particular, sending in an army of Generals on Lone Wolf (rather than the more canonically consistent Zealots) was pretty pointless since I could easily do that in Firefight. Offering Zealots would have been more worthwhile since they don't appear in Firefight and since it makes sense that the Field Marshal wouldn't just bring 5 of his elite warriors since he's clearly scum. Also, I hate Defend objectives. It's not really defending when you can lose Jun, your allies, and civilians and not get punished for it. Just like how the fireteams are negligible to AI behavior (they don't always stick with you). Oh and let's not forget how killing a civilian has the game send invisible lighting bolts which strike you on the spot. It'd have been more interesting if the surviving marines on Exodus became invincible, completely ignored the Covies, and aggressively pursued you. And goddamn I hate on-rails shooting. Nothing else makes me feel more vulnerable. I'd rather march through all those encounters than ride in a Falcon.[/quote] I respect your opinion but i think your wrong on most if that except what you said about firefight and sometimes bland enemies.But the whole point of reach was to tell the fall of reach from the perspective of noble 6.It was supposed to tell a grim and somewhat depressing story.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] DBG X Alch3mi5t loltroll[/quote] fail troll.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CBWade16 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] DBG X Alch3mi5t loltroll[/quote] fail troll.[/quote]Ha.
-
It's okay. I like its Forge,Custom games and soundtrack. Not as good as the other Halos though
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CBWade16 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TheSpiderChief This is Halo: Reach in a nutshell: Good multiplayer game; terrible Halo game.[/quote]Why do you say that.[/quote] Like [b]what[/b] makes it a '[i]Good multiplayer game[/i]'?!? How can a game which, after breaking record pre-order and day-1 sales records, then die on the MM playlists just [b]2 weeks after launch[/b]??? Can already hear the '[i]beaten by a new game[/i]' excuse ... but before you start off; #1) wasn't it still a new game itself after 2 weeks, and #2) one of the games that knocked it off was already 12 months old Was it that bungie just went into '[i]kill the halo series[/i]' mode, knowing that it was being booted from the halo series and also going to have to compete if/when it brought out its next title?? Why else would they have taken such a massive dump on their own game??
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Oh GodLike One [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CBWade16 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TheSpiderChief This is Halo: Reach in a nutshell: Good multiplayer game; terrible Halo game.[/quote]Why do you say that.[/quote] Like [b]what[/b] makes it a '[i]Good multiplayer game[/i]'?!? How can a game which, after breaking record pre-order and day-1 sales records, then die on the MM playlists just [b]2 weeks after launch[/b]??? Can already hear the '[i]beaten by a new game[/i]' excuse ... but before you start off; #1) wasn't it still a new game itself after 2 weeks, and #2) one of the games that knocked it off was already 12 months old Was it that bungie just went into '[i]kill the halo series[/i]' mode, knowing that it was being booted from the halo series and also going to have to compete if/when it brought out its next title?? Why else would they have taken such a massive dump on their own game??[/quote]When i said why do you say that i meant why do you think its a terrible halo game.
-
I think people took it under the microscope too much. I think it's a fantastic game...
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CBWade16 When i said "[i]why do you say that[/i]" i meant why do you think its a terrible halo game.[/quote] lol ... thought you were putting a case that it was a good multiplayer game. The game would have done better if bungie had not tried to sell it as a halo game ... it was a cheap sell - much the same with ODST (and they didnt learn from that leason either). It is like those cheap TV shows/movies - which take a character/name from a hit and start a cheap spin-off series. Its a lazy act ... and 90% of the time that lazy start then follows into the final production. Everyone expected better, what was left was the taste of disappointment. The way the games online numbers dropped only 2 weeks after launch showed that. People generally dont stop playing a game 2 weeks after buying it (and not one that cost top $$ at launch).
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CBWade16 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Sliding Ghost [/quote] I respect your opinion but i think your wrong on most if that except what you said about firefight and sometimes bland enemies. But the whole point of reach was to tell the fall of reach from the perspective of noble 6.It was supposed to tell a grim and somewhat depressing story.[/quote]Well I should also add that there was a lack of diversity. You'd think on the last level, you'd finally be treated to a mixed assault of Brutes and Elites (rather than the separate waves seen on The Package), but instead, you get what can easily be set in Firefight in the same location! Just Brutes. Anyways, I can't take Noble Six's perspective seriously when I have to do things by myself all the time because Noble Team are being incompetent; their contribution is nearly non-existent (I'm looking at you, Emile!). [Edited on 10.21.2012 5:17 AM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CBWade16 But the whole point of reach was to tell the fall of reach from the perspective of Noble 6.It was supposed to tell a grim and somewhat depressing story.[/quote] And what a failed job Bungie did at that.
-
All that you need to know. Bungie, had this great game, that was being dragged down by the Evil Dr. Matchmaking. Dr. Matchmaking liked to force people to do things they didn't want to do. So they took the only route left open to them. QUITTING from games. Bungie, in their infinite wisdom blamed the quitters for quitting. Not knowing that ultimately, those people would have never quit if not for the EVIL Dr. Matchmaking. So Bungie Made a quit ban. Meanwhile, the Evil Dr. Matchmaking continued to torture and experiment with his victims, and quitting became rampant even with a quit ban in place. Then, this....do-gooder came along, with a bad mouth. He tried to get everyone to realize. That Bungie should have made a -blam!- server browser instead of a quit ban. BTW Spider? You got it ass-backwards. Halo:Reach is a great Halo game, but a terrible multiplayer game. Halo sells because of the multiplayer. They -blam!- up the multiplayer by making that -blam!- quit ban instead of giving their community a server browser. So fix your logic dumbass. [Edited on 10.21.2012 9:03 AM PDT]
-
BTW!! What happens if a person gets stuck into a gametype/map that they don't want to play. But are then told not to quit from that game? Do you really think that person is going to just shutup and play? No. If they are not allowed to quit from it. They will then proceed to do everything they can to make YOU want to quit from it. That's why you are all stupid -blam!- idiots for wasting time on anything other than fixing matchmaking. PERIOD! If you still can't see that you are attempting to force the greater majority to treat all of multiplayer like its a 'big thing' on a major scale and should be treated as though your lively hood depended on it.... It's because you attempt to tell everyone to take multiplayer seriously that they do the exact opposite. If people want ranks and -blam!-. TELL THEM TO GO DO IT AT A -blam!- TOURNAMENT! I'm not ever going to treat a game with random people over the internet other than what it is. Do football players get forced to play ping-pong to compete? Then why does matchmaking do that to me. While at the same time attempting to enforce on me with a quit ban, that I'm playing in some super important tournament when I would rather quit out of the ping-pong matches when they get voted for. How many people "used to play" Halo? And I have to go all in for these 4/8 people? As if we here in this lobby are the only ones alive and playing halo. And because we are the last people on Earth playing Halo, we have an absolute obligation to play with each other or else. There are 1,000's more out there. Some willing to play what you dumbasses just voted for. I am not one of those dumbasses. Do not force me to have to play it out for you. You are nothing to me. This is the mindset of most players on X-Box live. [Edited on 10.21.2012 9:41 AM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MR E0S Dr. Matchmaking liked to force people to do things they didn't want to do. So they took the only route left open to them. QUITTING from games.[/quote] In Halo 3 you were FORCED to play between 2 maps/gamestypes bungie chose for you (if the first was vetod), in Reach you had 6 choices which you could vote for.. According to your logic Halo 3 was worse of a game than Reach. Point is people aren't always going to play the gametype/map YOU want to play, it's just how it is. People needed to learn how to deal with it instead of quitting like babies when they don't get the map or gametype they want. And maybe the voting system made it so more people quit, maybe the fact that they didn't get what they wanted put a thought into their minds that they don't wanna play now since they didn't get their way and others did. [Edited on 10.21.2012 9:50 AM PDT]
-
It started with 2. But Halo was big news back then. Big enough to overlook the problems inherent with matchmaking. As time goes on and the glamour wears off. People come to the conclusion that after playing on one stupid map in a playlist for 100 times. It's not worth it to play it 101 times. That's why as time went on the quitting got worse. People would rather play their "PREFERRED" map/gametypes of their choosing for the 101st time. I had 1 playlist to choose from for my preferred. You know how many times I actually got to play my preferred? 10% of the time. Thank you matchmaking. And why did I only get 10% Because the new voting system. Put up 3 options, make one of them basic slayer. and 90% of people vote for it. Essentially, you play slayer 90% of the time no matter what playlist you are choosing. If we had a server browser. I'd be playing CTF 100% of the time. [Edited on 10.21.2012 9:53 AM PDT]
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] MR E0S It started with 2. But Halo was big news back then. Big enough to overlook the problems inherent with matchmaking. As time goes on and the glamour wears off. People come to the conclusion that after playing on one stupid map in a playlist for 100 times. It's not worth it to play it 101 times. That's why as time went on the quitting got worse. People would rather play their "PREFERRED" map/gametypes of their choosing for the 101st time. I had 1 playlist to choose from for my preferred. You know how many times I actually got to play my preferred? 10% of the time. Thank you matchmaking. And why did I only get 10% Because the new voting system. Put up 3 options, make one of them basic slayer. and 90% of people vote for it. Essentially, you play slayer 90% of the time no matter what playlist you are choosing. If we had a server browser. I'd be playing CTF 100% of the time.[/quote] I have that problem too. I search in Team Objective, but they just keep giving me Slayer. [Edited on 10.21.2012 9:59 AM PDT]
