Haters gonna hate...

I’ve been perusing some of the topics here, and I couldn’t help but notice that a large percentage of them are about how bad Reach is in one way or another.

Let’s get one thing straight: I’m not new to Halo. I got into the franchise late (due to circumstances), but I’ve played through all “teh haloz” (Excluding Halo Wars) multiple times.

I don’t understand why people are complaining about Reach, or any other game in the series as being “bad” games. Comparing them, I can see improvements and new flaws with each sequential iteration, but not one of them stands out as a “bad game” to me. Halo:CE brought several new things to the FPS table, and was received well. And while it makes sense than Bungie would run with something good, I’m glad they also took “risks” with ODST and Reach as being slightly non-standard Halo games.

As for the multiplayer, Reach is my only real experience. Therefore, I can’t make too strong a statement; but even I can see that the system for matchmaking is far from perfect. However, I would suggest that anyone who is dissatisfied with the Reach multi could easily go back to 3. There’s still plenty of people who play.

Other than that, what’s to complain about? None of the campaigns in any of the games changed too greatly from the core. The elimination of the Flood from ODST and Reach was, to me, refreshing after playing 1-3. Visually, Reach is perfectly acceptable, and a few notches above 3 or ODST. The only thing about the Halo games that I’ve found to complain about is the arbitrarily high difficulty level of the Legendary setting. But then, I’m the kind of person who plays to have fun rather than to get frustrated.

Some reason people find it hard to take the game for what it is without comparing it to this and that.

and what it is? It’s a decent game.

Try to ignore the haters but don’t let your voice be drowned by them.

i dont see the point in them complaining its been out for over a year now, you cant change the past, plus they’ll complain then say “hurr durr ill go play sum reach”

Thank you for posting something refreshing. People need to move on and either not play the game or just play it and stop complaining. The games been out for a year, time to move on.

So in a sense you are new to matchmaking. Too bad you missed out on the best gaming communities, then being Halo 2/3. There was many custom games to be had, every person on your friends list was always on Halo so you didn’t have to try hard at all to find a custom game that suited you. You missed out on the competitive play and real Halo defining game mechanics and all the fun and deep gameplay they brought.

And it is because you missed out on all that, that your opinion doesn’t go far with me. Sorry nothing personal just experience wise.

> And it is because you missed out on all that, that your opinion doesn’t go far with me. Sorry nothing personal just experience wise.

I am inexperienced with mutiplayer, but I don’t see how that nullifies my statements; especially when 85% of them were about the campaign or the game as a whole rather than specifically the multiplayer. Without the multiplayer, the various campaigns would be the exact same. In a very real sense, the multiplayer is a separate game/experience altogether, and, to me, is the least important facet of the whole.

You’re not required to like or accept my opinions, but I would appreciate it if you made reasonable rebuts rather than tell me my opinion carries no weight because I don’t have your experience.

The thing with Reach is how obvious the potential to be so much more is. I could write walls of text on how that applies to the multiplayer but take the campaign for a prime and obvious example:

It is supposed to be the Battle for Reach. The biggest and most crucial battle of the Human-Covenant War. With that you would expect large-scale battles, desperation, a good plot depicting how important the planet is, etc. etc.

What did we get instead? We… drove around the countryside in a farming truck.

OK, you can’t tell me that is not incredibly disappointing. It was for me at least.

> > And it is because you missed out on all that, that your opinion doesn’t go far with me. Sorry nothing personal just experience wise.
>
> I am inexperienced with mutiplayer, but I don’t see how that nullifies my statements; especially when 85% of them were about the campaign or the game as a whole rather than specifically the multiplayer. Without the multiplayer, the various campaigns would be the exact same. In a very real sense, the multiplayer is a separate game/experience altogether, and, to me, is the least important facet of the whole.
>
> You’re not required to like or accept my opinions, but I would appreciate it if you made reasonable rebuts rather than tell me my opinion carries no weight because I don’t have your experience.

Reach’s campaign was boring. It was very bland not just because of the colors but the weapons as well. The only exciting part about it was defending Dr. Halsey’s door and even then I easily hi-jacked a Banshee on Legendary and wrecked havok. Halo CE was the most demanding, most entertaining and very very deep. Halo 2 continued on the at backstory I was craving for at the end of Halo CE. I then read all the novels while playing Halo 3 which IMO was still pretty good with the terminals and all. Halo: Reach took TFoR and threw it out the window, Red Team would made for a far better game. It canonically killed the book which had far superior story and events leading to the fall. But really to experience Halo one has to dive into the MM.

But then here you are complaining about people complaining about the MM, when you yourself have been brought up on what they are complaining about! With you only playing the MM of Reach you really can’t talk about the real Halo fans complaining about what is right to be complaining about. Jus’ sayin’.

> As for the multiplayer, Reach is my only real experience.

Hence why you think what you think.

Ignorance is bliss.

Unless you played Halo CE and two during the golden era of Halo’s competitive years, you will not understand how bad Reach really is. It’s worse than Halo 3 was and yet, I have full appreciation for Halo 3 now because of Reach.

> > And it is because you missed out on all that, that your opinion doesn’t go far with me. Sorry nothing personal just experience wise.
>
> I am inexperienced with mutiplayer, but I don’t see how that nullifies my statements; especially when 85% of them were about the campaign or the game as a whole rather than specifically the multiplayer. Without the multiplayer, the various campaigns would be the exact same. In a very real sense, the multiplayer is a separate game/experience altogether, and, to me, is the least important facet of the whole.

In many halo player eyes the campaign could be barney land adventure 5 but if the multiplayer was CE bullet travel times, CE movement, quick kill times, all weapons useful, the game had 19 AMAZING multiplayer maps virtually all of which were loved people would still adore the game. If you are playign for campaign story then i suggest you leave you TV go buy the halo novels and read.

> The thing with Reach is how obvious the potential to be so much more is. I could write walls of text on how that applies to the multiplayer but take the campaign for a prime and obvious example:
>
> It is supposed to be the Battle for Reach. The biggest and most crucial battle of the Human-Covenant War. With that you would expect large-scale battles, desperation, a good plot depicting how important the planet is, etc. etc.

Point taken. I suppose that’s what Halo Wars was supposed to convey (only with Harvest), but yes, the various settings in Reach do seem small and confined, especially when compared with H:CE’s extremely open-feeling backdrops; and the plot seems fairly unimportant in the big picture. However, think about this: the various special ops (Green Berets, Navy SEALs, etc.) are the best the U.S. armed forces have to offer. What do they do? Instead of standing on the front lines and kicking butt, they perform covert missions which are often just as instrumental to victory as major battles. This also plays into the “realism vs. fun” argument.

But really, all the Halo games have followed this formula, right down to alternating between “open ground” combat and the Halo equivalent of CQC (wandering though winding hallways and small rooms in search of fleshy targets).

I will say that it doesn’t make a lot of sense for the covenant to deploy an invading army, only to show up a week later en masse to glass the planet.

Yes, I see your point about the special forces doing certain tasks. But look at it this way: If the United States came under attack and the war was brought to our soil there would most certainly most Special Forces on the front lines.

That’s what it was like with Reach and the Spartan II’s. They were dropped in with ODSTs and ordered to defend the MAC generators; a duty typically assigned to normal Marines or at the very most ODSTs, but Spartans? Not really.

That’s what I wanted with Reach: for the game to feel like Reach. Instead I felt like I was fighting for some no-name outer colony world.

> In many halo player eyes the campaign could be barney land adventure 5 but if the multiplayer was CE bullet travel times, CE movement, quick kill times, all weapons useful, the game had 19 AMAZING multiplayer maps virtually all of which were loved people would still adore the game. If you are playign for campaign story then i suggest you leave you TV go buy the halo novels and read.

I really should read the novels. I’ve heard they’re quite good.

Apparently don’t realize that without the campaign to provide context and character, the multiplayer is really nothing special. As mechanics go, it works very well, but then so do the mechanics of many of other multiplayer games. Why, then, would you or any one prefer Halo over, say, Battlefield or Unreal? Because of the depth of material behind it. That’s why story (which is revealed in campaign) is so important. I believe that had the Halo multiplayer been developed outside of Halo and not “Halo-themed” (basically a multi-only with no context), it would not have become nearly as popular as it is now, despite its inherent value.

Reach, like all the Halo games before it, is more than just multiplayer. If it were not, it would truly be the worthless product many people make it out to be.

> > In many halo player eyes the campaign could be barney land adventure 5 but if the multiplayer was CE bullet travel times, CE movement, quick kill times, all weapons useful, the game had 19 AMAZING multiplayer maps virtually all of which were loved people would still adore the game. If you are playign for campaign story then i suggest you leave you TV go buy the halo novels and read.
>
> I really should read the novels. I’ve heard they’re quite good.
>
> Apparently don’t realize that without the campaign to provide context and character, the multiplayer is really nothing special. As mechanics go, it works very well, but then so do the mechanics of many of other multiplayer games. Why, then, would you or any one prefer Halo over, say, Battlefield or Unreal? Because of the depth of material behind it. That’s why story (which is revealed in campaign) is so important. I believe that had the Halo multiplayer been developed outside of Halo and not “Halo-themed” (basically a multi-only with no context), it would not have become nearly as popular as it is now, despite its inherent value.
>
> Reach, like all the Halo games before it, is more than just multiplayer. If it were not, it would truly be the worthless product many people make it out to be.

See there you go with your Reach-vision again. Players didn’t like Halo because it was the flavor of the month (or Year(s)), players loved it because it was a balanced sci-fi shooter. Sure the story is what grabs people and w/o it people wouldn’t know the names of the weapons (probably). But thats about it. Halo 2 made record breaking sales and pre-orders out of the promise of online play, not promise of continuing the story line, although that is a given with a sequel.

And Reach IS truly the worthless product many of us make it out to be when compared to previous Halo titles.

Another thing people like FPSs in general then people like FPSs in genres, pretty much Halo set the standard for just about every console FPS. Battlefield is a different genre, Unreal is a different genre, CoD is a different genre and each with their own fans and game mechanics.

Halo = Balanced = Happy Fans
Reach = Unbalanced = Unhappy Fans

> But then here you are complaining about people complaining about the MM, when you yourself have been brought up on what they are complaining about! With you only playing the MM of Reach you really can’t talk about the real Halo fans complaining about what is right to be complaining about. Jus’ sayin’.

  1. I’m not “complaining”. I’m asking for clarification of opinion.

  2. If it works well enough for beginners, how bad is it really?

This reminds me of the outcry that followed the release of the D&D 4.0 rules. I’m sure that having a system you’re used to be completely replaced with something that seems (or perhaps actually is) inferior is frustrating, to say the least. Would you prefer that the various multiplayer versions all be the same exact same with new maps? I’m sure someone would, but that would be lazy on the part of the developer.

Personally, I would rather see failed innovation rather than stagnant success.

Haters gonna hate. Baggers gonna Bag.

Hope u understand the metaphor.

Tbag.

> Would you prefer that the various multiplayer versions all be the same exact same with new maps?

Oh you mean like CoD and BF? Which by the way are… leading the FPS market. hint hint

> Personally, I would rather see failed innovation rather than stagnant success.

Now I need that Urza guy in here to tell you how any innovation or change is automatically NOT good or better. But in people’s mind set for some reason it is.

If the government issued martial law right now would that new and fresh change automatically be better? Uh… no, its martial law.

But take some of these people’s advise, read the novels and don’t talk about MM when all you have experienced is Reach. Ok maybe that was a little harsh, you can talk about Reach MM, but when others bring up past titles it would be best to leave your inexperience out of the debate after wall… what do you know about it? It would be like a foreigner voting on your city’s mayor.

As much as I think their complaints are stupid, they have every right to complain. It’s just ridiculous when they say things like Reach is “bad” or “Reach isn’t Halo”. Those are the kind of comments that ruin the games for everyone. However, I wouldn’t dig to deep into those comments because some of those people have been complaining since H2 came out. One of my favorite things about Halo is how it’s always fresh and fun with every new game. If I wanted to buy the same game over and over, I would be playing COD. But I don’t. Reach compiled as much things Halo has brought and put it into one game. Campaign, FF, MM, custom games, Forge (sure it’s a little dull by now, but it’s way better than H3). That’s why IMO Reach is the top Halo game.

> Now I need that Urza guy in here to tell you how any innovation or change is automatically NOT good or better. But in people’s mind set for some reason it is.

If it’s failed innovation, it’s clearly not better. What’s “good” is the fact they’re trying something new, instead of being satisfied with what they already have. Not all change is good, but it follows that some is. I’ll take your word for it that the Reach multi is inferior, but how should that effect me?

I never said Reach was perfect, nor would I would ever say that. Even the campaign was a little lackluster in places. And yes, I agree that it is inferior to H:CE, but I already knew that. And yet, I enjoy it anyway- multiplayer and all.