Reach was a failure compared to the success of Halo 3, which had more sales than Halo 2. That shows a history of improvement. Reach achieving half the sales in 9 months more time…failure as far as business goes.
maybe not a failure of a game in your opinion. But half the sales speaks volumes.
> I’m SURE Microsoft profited off of Halo:Reach. The fact that it made them money, and was actually the fastest selling video game in 24 hours (until Black Ops came out), and is always in the Top 10 most played games on Xbox, makes me sure that they don’t consider it a failure.
>
> Reach wasn’t a failure, it was all around a good game.
Making money does not equal success…maybe I should rephrase…Reach was not nearly as successful or profitable as halo 3. There, is that better for those looking for something to argue?
You make a good point, fastest selling video game in 24 hours…but look how sales lacked Halo 3 in the end. Plus, the 360 was new when H3 was released…it was an established console when Reach was released.
The memories I had with Halo 3 with friends and intense games will never compare to Halo: Reach. I’m hoping Halo 4 can provide some of that again.
> Reach was a failure compared to the success of Halo 3, which had more sales than Halo 2. That shows a history of improvement. Reach achieving half the sales in 9 months more time…failure as far as business goes.
>
> maybe not a failure of a game in your opinion. But half the sales speaks volumes.
You can’t possibly have expected a spin-off to sell more than the conclusion of a trilogy. The same thing happens in cinema all the time: people decide to move on once a series finishes, and they don’t bother returning for subsequent additions. You should be comparing Reach’s sales figures to those of ODST or Halo Wars, not Halo 3.
> > “Chris Carney, lead designer for the multiplayer mode, recalled vocal dissatisfaction with the pistol early in the beta; by the end of the beta, the weapon was responsible for most of the kills coming from newly included weapons in the game.”
> >
> >
> >
> > Does anyone else see how flawed this system of data gathering is?
>
> The pistol did had a wider bloom than it did when Reach was first out, so I could see how the beta settings on the gun showed that it needed a buff in some form since other guns were doing a better job than it in the same range.
That wasn’t my point.
> People need to stop lauding their opinions as fact.
>
>
> Reach wasn’t a failure. A failure “doesn’t make the cut”. Reach is still popularly populated. A fact that most naysayers can’t seem to see when it’s sitting right in front of them.
>
>
> You could probably brush aside all the “CE Loyal Fans” and there would still be enough casual players to keep Halo alive.
>
> Halo is what the company who distributes it makes it out to be.
>
> No gamer has stock, creative control or design designation to call Halo “Theirs”.
>
>
> Halo is run and owned by 343. Y’all just rent here. The “fanboys” business is very much accepted and wanted - But it’s not <mark>needed</mark>.
>
> The “failure” of Reach already proves that point. A “broken” and “failure” of a game would’ve been abandoned by it’s so-called “loyalists” long ago.
>
> 17 months strong and counting…
Again, failure as compared to halo 3 to make it easier on the ears and less arguable.
Doesn’t make the cut, not sure what you mean. I assume its not litteral as games woulddn’t be released if they didn’t make the cut. But doesn’t matter since its been revised. Actually, I’ll edit the post to correct the wording.
Halo is owned by Microsoft, which is a publicly traded company of which I own stock. So, techincally I am a gamer, I have stock, which means I have a monetary interest in the success of this game and franchise.
I believe, if you check, the game has been abandoned by many “loyalist” for other games. Just from personal experience, I’d have 20 friends playing halo a night, now there are only a couple of my original gang playing. I’ve had to add new players to continue playing.
> I so hope it goes back to Halo 2 days.
I agree, in a way. For me, Halo 2 MM was the most fun IF you take away the super jumping, double shot and quad shot, etc… But I really enjoyed being able to go into a game with my friends, use beat downs or stickies only and have fun doing it. Then, as a bonus, at the end of the game you would see 10 kills with 0 shots fired. That was a stat I liked, along with hit percentage.
If you had some skill with any of the weapons (well, maybe most) you could kill most with a BR. However you couldn’t simply hold down a trigger from across the map and inflict harm. That was nice.
> Sprint was in Reach.
>
> Sprint has made it into Halo4 which is the biggest head scratcher for me. Scares the hype right out of me. 343 had one shot to kill all the insanity Reach brought to the game of Halo in the form of AAs. Somehow the cancer known as Sprint spread to 343. Couldn’t cut all the cancer out it seems.
>
> It tells me 343 doesn’t believe in how great the core of Halo is without gimmicks. They don’t believe in Halo like I believe in Halo. They don’t trust Halo like I trust Halo. They don’t understand Halo like John Howard understands Halo.
For me, Sprint could be ok. They’d have to tweak it so it couldn’t be exploited like double beat downs, help over power the sword, etc. If they made a melee be delayed like using a weapon, that would help.
To me, it seems most issues with Sprint are the unfair or unbalance it can create in certain situations. however, with bleedthrough removed, if someone is rusing you and you refrain from meleeing and contine to shoot, they will die before their second beat down (pistol and dmr experience, haven’t tried an ar yet).
So maybe, with tweaking, it wouldn’t be bad.
> The memories I had with Halo 3 with friends and intense games will never compare to Halo: Reach. I’m hoping Halo 4 can provide some of that again.
ditto
> I’m SURE Microsoft profited off of Halo:Reach. The fact that it made them money, and was actually the fastest selling video game in 24 hours (until Black Ops came out), and is always in the Top 10 most played games on Xbox, makes me sure that they don’t consider it a failure.
>
> Reach wasn’t a failure, it was all around a good game.
You couldn’t be more wrong. Reach was a disaster. In terms of sales, yes it did fine. But sales does not make it a good game. It’s the longevity of it and how many people enjoyed it. Everyone has played a game that has tremendous sales success, but just flat out sucks (cough* Any Call of Duty game after CoD 2 *cough). But to think Reach was a success is just plain dumb. People don’t play it anymore. People STILL play H2 and H3, yet there is hardly anyone on Reach anymore. So right there is enough proof to show that sales don’t equal success. If anything, sales for Halo 4 will be worse because so many people have been turned away from the Halo franchise because of Reach.
> I’m SURE Microsoft profited off of Halo:Reach. The fact that it made them money, and was actually the fastest selling video game in 24 hours (until Black Ops came out), and is always in the Top 10 most played games on Xbox, makes me sure that they don’t consider it a failure.
>
> Reach wasn’t a failure, it was all around a good game.
^this
> > Reach was a failure compared to the success of Halo 3, which had more sales than Halo 2. That shows a history of improvement. Reach achieving half the sales in 9 months more time…failure as far as business goes.
> >
> > maybe not a failure of a game in your opinion. But half the sales speaks volumes.
>
> You can’t possibly have expected a spin-off to sell more than the conclusion of a trilogy. The same thing happens in cinema all the time: people decide to move on once a series finishes, and they don’t bother returning for subsequent additions. You should be comparing Reach’s sales figures to those of ODST or Halo Wars, not Halo 3.
Ok, maybe you’re right. But trilogy’s in cinema are worse than the first. So this doesn’t follow that suit either. Plus gaming is not cinema (imo). Are you just looking for something to argue or do you actually believe, the majority of halo gamers feels reach is on the same level has halo 3? maybe I’m the minority here.
Well, the phantom menace has grossed 1 billion dollars…which in only 1.5 M from surpasing the end of trilogy The Dark Knight in international box office sales. But I really don’t want to get stuck arguing. I think you probably know what I’m saying…maybe we just dont agree.
i like default reach… and now i can’t play it in MM anymore with the playlists i like. 343i is not appealing to me right now. i am OVERLY skeptical of H4.
> Again, <mark>failure as compared to halo 3</mark> to make it easier on the ears and less arguable.
>
> Doesn’t make the cut, not sure what you mean. I assume its not litteral as games woulddn’t be released if they didn’t make the cut. But doesn’t matter since its been revised. Actually, I’ll edit the post to correct the wording.
>
> Halo is owned by Microsoft, which is a publicly traded company of which I own stock. <mark>So, techincally I am a gamer, I have stock, which means I have a monetary interest in the success of this game and franchise</mark>.
>
> I believe, if you check, the game has been abandoned by many “loyalist” for other games. Just from personal experience, I’d have 20 friends playing halo a night, now there are only a couple of my original gang playing. I’ve had to add new players to continue playing.
“compared to X game” doesn’t gauge it’s value of Success or not.
It sold, people still play it and enjoy it. What would you call that?
There’s no “Reach failed in the ways I said so that makes it a failure”.
No, it just wasn’t for you and those like you which again, DOES NOT make up majority of the population. The population is filled with as many and more Neutrals than you’d think.
Your “original gang” makes up barely a hundredth of the percentage of Reach Players.
<mark>You know what I meant. You didn’t help create it in any way, shape or form aside from suggestive opinion of what you think might work. You have absolute ZERO control on where the franchise should go in ANY aspect.</mark>
Making the cut means it wouldn’t survive after a matter of months or the community abandons it to the point of server shut down.
So then by what you’re telling me is that your friends left to play different games. That just means other games are interesting. It still doesn’t factually note that Reach is a “Failure”.
It failed FOR you. It succeeded in the real world.
Everyone who’s continually playing it knows Reach didn’t fail. 343/Bungie/Microsoft know it didn’t fail. Only a select amount of people who can’t let go of the past voice their disdain and unlike the story:
Reach Never Fell.
Rant all you want, you and those like you just didn’t like it. Don’t understand why you can’t admit majority of people just want something to waste their time with. Not build into a fiasco.
Your poll doesn’t make any sense. “Will Halo 4 be Better or Worse than Halo 3?”
YES
NO
NEVER
…
Wat?
> Your poll doesn’t make any sense. “Will Halo 4 be Better or Worse than Halo 3?”
>
> YES
> NO
> NEVER
>
> …
>
> Wat?
lol’d
> I’m SURE Microsoft profited off of Halo:Reach. The fact that it made them money, and was actually the fastest selling video game in 24 hours (until Black Ops came out), and is always in the Top 10 most played games on Xbox, makes me sure that they don’t consider it a failure.
>
> Reach wasn’t a failure, it was all around a good game.
If a game sells less than the previous game in the series, it is seen as a failure. Neglecting that fact, Reach is in the top 10 on XbL, which is nice. However, Halo 3 is still up there too (last I checked). Not to mention the fact that COD generally holds 2-3 spots. If MS doesn’t view Reach as a failure, then they need to start firing people.
The people who played Halo 3 instead of COD liked it because it was the only game on the market that was like Halo. The fans of the series do not want Halo to be like COD, if they wanted to play COD they would. 343 just needs to go back to Halo’s roots and proceed from there.
.
> > I’m SURE Microsoft profited off of Halo:Reach. The fact that it made them money, and was actually the fastest selling video game in 24 hours (until Black Ops came out), and is always in the Top 10 most played games on Xbox, makes me sure that they don’t consider it a failure.
> >
> > Reach wasn’t a failure, it was all around a good game.
>
> If a game sells less than the previous game in the series, it is seen as a failure. Neglecting that fact, Reach is in the top 10 on XbL, which is nice. However, Halo 3 is still up there too (last I checked). Not to mention the fact that COD generally holds 2-3 spots. If MS doesn’t view Reach as a failure, then they need to start firing people.
>
> The people who played Halo 3 instead of COD liked it because it was the only game on the market that was like Halo. The fans of the series do not want Halo to be like COD, if they wanted to play COD they would. 343 just needs to go back to Halo’s roots and proceed from there.
I agree mostly with this, apart from the COD comparison. Reach isn’t a failure because it’s like COD, it’s a failure because it’s utterly unremarkable where as Halo 3 had plenty of qualities that made it stand out. Halo 4 needs that again, when we put Halo 4 in the Xbox we should feel like we’re playing Halo rather than “Some sci fi game”
> If it is too late for them to make major changes like you said, we’re legitimately screwed.