1.Would you say that Halo 4 is worse than Halo Reach?
2.And if you were dissapointed with the Multiplayer, did you at least enjoy the Campaign?
“Good players will still be good, bad players will still be bad” 343’s quote.
Halo Reach, bad players could do good, but they where still bad 
So no to your question, this game is 1000 times better then Reach, Reach was awful!
In my opinion I like Reach a little more than Reach but Yes I did enjoy the Halo 4 campaign somewhat. I’m just not as impressed with Halo 4 as the other Halo games.
not only could reach make bad players good but it made good players do bad too. bad head hit registration was a killer.
Halo 4 is a great game.
Funny quote btw by 343 but so true!
Though this game is much better than Reach, it still isn’t a good game compared to other Halos. As for the campaign, I was highly dissapointed. 343 took the easy way out by ending it the way they did and I see no future for the campaigns of Halo 5 and 6.
> So no to your question, this game is 1000 times better then Reach, Reach was awful!
I’m only disappointed because I’ve played halo since I was 10, was super stoked at the end of 3 for 4, and now when I’m 21 and it is finally out I can’t play 3/4 of it do to loading errors. What I have played I love, but this game seems like it was only 80% ready
> Though this game is much better than Reach, it still isn’t a good game compared to other Halos. As for the campaign, I was highly dissapointed. 343 took the easy way out by ending it the way they did and I see no future for the campaigns of Halo 5 and 6.
Other than the ending, did you enjoy the rest of the campaign? and what are yout thoughts of it compared to Reach’s campaign or Halo 3’s campaign?
> I’m only disappointed because I’ve played halo since I was 10, was super stoked at the end of 3 for 4, and now when I’m 21 and it is finally out I can’t play 3/4 of it do to loading errors. What I have played I love, but this game seems like it was only 80% ready
Thats odd, they had 3 years, and plenty of time to fix things. But ignoring glitches, did you enjoy the actual gameplay, story, ect.
> 1.Would you say that Halo 4 is worse than Halo Reach?
That’s a hard question to answer.
Personally, I wouldn’t group the two games together. It’s as if Halo: Reach took a leap away from what Halo is, and Halo 4 took a few miles.
I simply wouldn’t group the two together. My opinion is that I think they’re both not good Halo games.
> 2.And if you were dissapointed with the Multiplayer, did you at least enjoy the Campaign?
I enjoyed certain aspects of the campaign, while others heavily disappointed me.
Like with my response to your first question, it simply wasn’t Halo. Things like the music, writing, and core Campaign story and experience just didn’t feel like the classic Halo campaign experience I knew and loved. For example, I wasn’t at all fond of the little “first-person cutscenes” that seemed to be a centerpiece of the campaign experience. I disliked them in Halo: Reach as well.
Another issue that Halo 4 had similar to Halo: Reach pertaining to the campaign was the character development. Of course the development of Chief and Cortana was there, and I still wouldn’t say that they went in a good direction with that, but with characters like Lasky and others that I honestly can’t even remember, it was horrible. Lasky, of course, had a descent amount of development through Forward Unto Dawn, but you must remember that you shouldn’t expect people to view a third-party series to understand aspects of the campaign experience.
For me Reach and Halo 4 are equal. Reach destroyed some things about Halo that Halo 4 fixed but at the same time Halo 4 broke different aspects of Halo and changed the game forever. Bad players were able to gain advantages in Reach with things like Armor lock. AA’s are definitely not as powerful in Halo 4 to give bad players that edge but Halo 4 multiplayer holds your hand so much that it takes little skill to get the hang of it. Map control is almost gone, everything is announced to the players that shouldn’t be, including where power weapons spawn. Random ordinence drops give certain players advantages over others along with unlocking perks and such to change gameplay for certain players against others.
Halo 4 is more of a side step from Reach in that aspect, and on top of it there is the huge gutting of custom and forge options, gametypes and vehicles that were in previous games. CTF lost quite a bit of dynamic and feels watered down. “Bad” players still have bigger advantages that they used to from Halo 1, 2 and 3.
Then there is campaign, in my opinion is an awful story but that doesn’t bother me much sisnce I’ve never cared for any Halo story as they’ve all been lackluster for me. The best was CE, only because of its very alien like world and presence that caused a sence of aww and raw emotion.
Spartan ops is just a different version of firefight wich I thought would be more campaign based but it just ends up as “kill these enemies” game over. No story progression or back stories at all.
Presentation is better (except for the ending and the end of Requiem), but the game:
-
lacks polish (easily broken levels, very common glitches on Reclaimer (I lost count at 15 but I bet there’s at least 27 reported instances), wonky Banshee pilots, Hunters and fuel rod Elites lack damage/range for turning melee, a Ranger utilizes storm rifle and sword but there’s no clear reason for his sword pulling not to mention he only jumps if you’re in a certain spot)
-
still hinders our efforts (blows up the Banshee if you get it through the door on Requiem, deletes the Wraith if you get it past the dangerous substances on Reclaimer, locks us out of the previous area, soft kill zones in ridiculous places)
-
prioritizes on difficulty, extending to all difficulties, not just Heroic and Legendary. Normal is the new Heroic in that the enemy damage is higher. Easy is unpleasantly overwhelming. You can’t even fight the enemies on foot when you get the Mantis! Legendary AI are cheap (but not nearly as brutal as Reach AI). Frequent ammo depletion, though I haven’t encountered it (only played 1 level on Legendary, handled most Knights without using weapons on them)
-
sacrifices gameplay for story. QTEs and instances where you temporarily lose control of Chief to hit a switch or do something make replaying a mission very inconvenient, not to mention how slow doors open (they opened instantly in Halo 3). Made even worse by how QTEs don’t change on higher difficulties, how the prompt for actions that are so obvious (on the first level, Chief looks in the direction where you should go) always appears.
There ought to be some sort of free play mode that gets rid of all that. Look at some of CE’s openings (The Library, Two Betrayals, Keyes, The Maw), you could gain control instantly.
- carries over MP changes to the campaign (Chief should be better than SIVs but afaik, he’s just a reskinned SIV)
I think it’s more or less the same, though there are a lot of changes that I received well. It’s just the negative things stick out like a sore thumb which is keeping me from giving a completely positive review.
1.There is almost no skill required it seems. Also lacks a good amount of playlist.
2.It was fun, but left a lot of unanswered questions.
I believe that Halo 4 actually took away more than it added in. I dont think that Reach is bad in any way and dont know why people think that the Reach matchmaking is terrible, or the entire game itself, and still havnt seen any opinions on why they think it is. I wont sit here and list the reasons on why I think that Halo 4’s matchmaking is complete poo poo, but will say that the Halo 4 campaign is great.
actually I think Reach was very good also, but it was lacking in maps, Bungie decided to get lazy and add in grey, ugly looking consumer made forge maps instead of adding new maps. so the lack of new maps from bungie did limit Reach’s potential in my eyes.
-
Yes
-
It was ok, not the best but not the worst
Ive already been enjoying Halo 4 much more than I was with Halo Reach. I think the multiplayer is fine but there definitely are things they need to fix. I didn’t care for campaign too much.
My vote is on ‘No’ but the gap isn’t any where near as big as it should be.
> > Though this game is much better than Reach, it still isn’t a good game compared to other Halos. As for the campaign, I was highly dissapointed. 343 took the easy way out by ending it the way they did and I see no future for the campaigns of Halo 5 and 6.
>
> Other than the ending, did you enjoy the rest of the campaign? and what are yout thoughts of it compared to Reach’s campaign or Halo 3’s campaign?
I thought the campaign was dumbed down from Reach’s to be honest. I actually think the way the campaign flowed in Reach was the best out of all the Halos. You weren’t just moving from room to room killing bad guys from what I remember. Story wise, I think Halo 3 was better than both and the ending was fantastic and have played it multiple times because I always get a great feeling when the camera goes over the 117 at the end. I also thought plot holes like why the covenant broke the truce and why Master Chief wasn’t surprised to see more Spartans after being considered the last one in earlier games were way to obvious and unanswered. The prometheans were great I think they honestly should have left the covenenant out of the campaign and stuck with the prometheans, but also include the covenant in another mode so the weapons could still be in the game. Overall, the new story was unnecessary and I would rather it just never happen.
Halo 4’s Campaign is better than Halo Reach’s Campaign
Halo 4’s Multiplayer is worse than Halo Reach’s Multiplayer