Perspective

Edit: OK some people are getting it in their heads that im talking exclusively about relative lag between halo 3 and Reach. I am not. I discuss underlying netcode once (not lag), but that is only one of my points. I also state multiple times that i found H3 lag to be no worse than it ever was in its prime anyway.

Ive been playing halo 3 again for a few days (mainly TS and swat), for a nostalgia trip and to try and get some perspective on this reach vs h3 situation. H3 was a bit of a shock going back to, but actually still a lot of fun, even if the gunplay in it does seem rather haphazard to me now.

And then i came back to Reach and im pretty much blown away. What i want to know is this:

How can people honestly claim, with a straight face, that Reach is “just bad”?

Or to use the popular vernacular “Reach trash”

Its plainly obvious that Reach is dripping withquality. Its one of the most polished games out there, only GOW3 rivals it for polish imo. For one thing, Reach netcode is literally about 10 times better, and that alone should put it ahead of H3, perhaps even in the majority of multiplayer aspects, as the next evolution of online FPS. Its nothing short of remarkable how much tighter and more active and reactive everything feels than previous halo games.

Especially seeing as i went straight from H3 swat to Reach swat. Its like reach was made for swat, and you really get a feel for why the DMR earned its nickname “an elegant weapon”. Also one other thing i noticed is how there is actually less jumping and more aiming in reach. Going back to H3 felt like i was playing on the moon, and people in swat literally had autofire jump buttons or something. Again, another thing i never noticed until i had the benefit of hindsight.

This isnt a “lets hate on H3” thread, as i said i enjoyed it and it felt like slipping on an old pair of comfy if slightly worn slippers.

No doubt Reach has its share of issues, but then so does H3 and i believe overall its a much better multiplayer game. I just want to know how people feel they can outright dismiss the work bungie did with Reach online as trash. I can see absolutely no reason for that to be true at all, so im left wondering if its just popular to hate Reach because everyone else says they hate it? IE if the whole Reach hate issue boils down to a populist memetic construct.

Try it, go and play halo 3 again for a night, then come back to reach, and post your honest opinion. Or if you have something to say right now, by all means say it.

You can’t compare Halo 3 as it is now to Reach; you have to compare the two when 3 was in its prime. Now, every game is worse because of all the foreign hosts and lack of population. That was not a problem two years ago and 3 then, even with its poorer netcode, was a superior game overall than Reach is now. Reach is a step away from what 3 was in the wrong direction.

If you think that SWAT is the only way to claim that one game is completely better than the other, then you have a problem that nobody can fix.

And just because a game is “polished” doesn’t mean it’s good. Graphics don’t make the game good; good gameplay makes the game good.

Actually the lag wasnt any better or worse that it ever was in its prime, and im british. I remember that right from launch, when the lag was bad in H3 it was far more terrible than anything Reach could muster, and H3 BTB was and is very frequently this bad. The search times are much longer now though.

Swat in just a singular example i used seeing as thats mainly what i played. I could have written a wall covering all aspects and playlists, but i wanted other peoples opinions instead. You dont seem to know what is meant by “polish” either, i was actually referring to gameplay, not graphics, which i havent mentioned once until now.

That explains the lag. I didn’t have a problem with lag until after Reach came out. And I still will get horribly laggy games in Reach.

SWAT was the wrong gametype to pick. Why not just regular Team Slayer?

The term “polish” has always referred to graphics, never to gameplay. So YOU don’t seem to know what is meant by “polished”; I DO, just not your incorrect interpretation.

Polished - flawless; skillful; excellent

OT - I agree with OP, going back to H3 brings to light the oddness of the “Reach” crowd. I’ll take incremental evolution over a 5 year old game and mechanics any day.

Reach is Bungie’s crowning Halo achievement and is due the respect earned.

You haven’t played Halo 3 enough in its prime to really get a feel for it. You shouldn’t be making comparisons between Reach and 3 because you don’t have all the relative information. It’d be like me trying to compare Age of Empires to Halo Wars even though I’ve only played a few games of AoE and many many games of Wars. It shouldn’t be done.

All P2P games become nearly unplayable after a sequel is released. Less players=less good hosts and matchups with players who are further away=more latency/lag. Go play CoD 4, or gears 2, then come back and say they play the same they did in their prime. Thats just the way P2P works, its entirely dependent on the population and the populations hosting capabilities.

Reach will be just as bad as Halo 3 is now when the next Halo game is released, aside from the fact that Reach uses hitscan bullet physics. There is no point in going back to Halo 3 now and using its currently poor state to claim reach is better, when that’s nothing how the game played in its prime.

Then there’s the fact that a lot of sub par players took their inability to lead shots and blamed it on the netcode, in addition to the random BR spread, which was clearly a design flaw. There were problems with the netcode that Reach solved, but most of the problems were heavily exaggerated and falsely attributed to netcode when they were actually design choices.

Most people who bash Reach, will not say Halo 3 is a better game. Both Halo 3 and Reach have their own unique set of problems.

Easily. Halo: Reach is the worst Halo game that ruined the Halo franchise for me. The game play is broken. They didn’t even try to balance anything. It just seems like Bungie went and was like, “Oh lets add this for the hel of it!,” “Oh yea that sounds great it can screw over every body!”

Another thing about Reach that pisses me off is we were told no 1 gun for everything type gun yet we got the DMR which anihilates everything and can save your -Yoink- from everything but the lolBanshee or a skillful (lol) sniper …

> To the guy above me: You haven’t played Halo 3 enough in its prime to really get a feel for it.

As far as playtime with the current GT, you’re correct. It pales in comparison to the amount of time logged in Reach. Long story short, there was another console which got bricked which caused an extended leave to PS3, which created a new GT. Don’t take my feedback on face value however, do consult the myriad of other feedback throughout the forums that acknowledge the aged nature that is H3.

The feedback still stands, and after all it is opinion based. I don’t expect to sway anyone with my perspective, however this is the avenue by which I’ll interact with the community.

I agree w/ the OP and I’ve done the same thing before this post. I’ve gone back to Halo 3 and couldn’t wait to get back to Halo : Reach. I love Reach… pretty much everything about it. I can respect how people don’t care for aspects of it. People are entitled to their own opinion… but the manner most of them do it shows their immaturity. People who don’t care for Reach often use stuff like, “lolreachlol”, call it trash, and / or insult the people who like it directly or indirectly. People who treat others like this I’d just assume avoid and / or never play with them. (Generally unhappy people clearly… even if it had met their expectations to perfection)

Not to mention… we are talking about a game that has been out WELL over a year now. It just shows how emotionally unhealthy some in the community are (I hope its just the minority). To sometimes DAILY continue to dwell on negativity (About something you can do little about especially) means that the person probably feels that way daily (Negative).

I’ve had games that I had high expectations for that were not met… but I moved on. (And relatively quickly when compared to this) You could always play Halo 3 right? Why even waste time @ the Reach forums? It makes no sense to me… On a campaign to make sure Halo 4 doesn’t turn out like the, “Not-Halo” (Again… ridiculous statement) Halo : Reach? Then perhaps you should be doing that on the, “Halo 4” forums instead of arguing w/ people in the Halo : Reach forums? Makes sense to me…

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.

> Easily. Halo: Reach is the worst Halo game that ruined the Halo franchise for me. The game play is broken. They didn’t even try to balance anything. It just seems like Bungie went and was like, “Oh lets add this for the hel of it!,” “Oh yea that sounds great it can screw over every body!”
>
> Another thing about Reach that pisses me off is we were told no 1 gun for everything type gun yet we got the DMR which anihilates everything and can save your -Yoink!- from everything but the lolBanshee or a skillful (lol) sniper …

Youre an example of the kind of person im talking about. You rubbish the entire game out of hand, and i dont understand how this is possible.

Can you qualify any of the statements youve made here? You say that bungie didnt even try to balance things and just threw stuff in…you do know that they hire and pay money for professional playtesters right? And that there was a month long public beta which millions played, after which they did adjust some things based on feedback. So how can you say they didnt even try? Or are you just saying the popular thing to say?

I do sort of agree with you on the DMR though, thats why i espouse slightly increasing the bloom, and giving the close range automatic weapons a bit more efficacy, whilst still letting you destroy at close range if you are actually good at lining up shots properly and taking them and not wasting bullets with what is a marksmans rifle.

> I agree and that is from having played the SINGLE PLAYER game on my end so that I would assume plays the same as it did back when Halo 3 was, “Amazing” or does population affect that too?

So you’re trying to compare the entire game of Halo 3 to the entire game of Reach when you’ve only played the Campaign of both? That’s like comparing one three-course meal to another by only having the vegetables of each.

I find Reach to be an exquisite addition to the Halo franchise, with an expansion on the classic playstyle I personally have enjoyed tremendously. While understanding for some it has been a departure that was offensive, I feel that if Halo as a franchise had not expanded on it’s mechanics, there would be even more people frustrated and disapointed with the performance of the last installment.

While we will never know if that would have been the case, we all will most likely be watching when Halo 4 is released and while AA’s most likely will not be in them (I assume), major advancements in gameplay beyond the mechanics of CE, 2, 3 and Reach will surely be included. Who gets left behind, how angry they are and what it is that becomes the focal point of this anger remains to be seen, but I hope that it does not remain as hostile as it has for those that enjoy Reach.

Wow. I guess the mod just deleted the posts where he backed the OP’s arguments and I proved him wrong. Funny stuff.

I’m done with this forum until we get more info on Halo 4.

The posts deleted were of a nature not conducive to a friendly environment. Have a great day.

Some of the deleted posts were from the mod herself…

Post deletion isn’t handled by Superintendents. Just saying. Whatever went on probably has to do with what SgtMaj AJJ said. I didn’t delete the posts, but I can tell you the person you assume did it is in fact innocent. Assuming gets you nowhere. Keep it moving.

Sounds like a cover-up to me…

> All P2P games become nearly unplayable after a sequel is released. Less players=less good hosts and matchups with players who are further away=more latency/lag. Go play CoD 4, or gears 2, then come back and say they play the same they did in their prime. Thats just the way P2P works, its entirely dependent on the population and the populations hosting capabilities.
>
> Reach will be just as bad as Halo 3 is now when the next Halo game is released, aside from the fact that Reach uses hitscan bullet physics. There is no point in going back to Halo 3 now and using its currently poor state to claim reach is better, when that’s nothing how the game played in its prime.
>
> Then there’s the fact that a lot of sub par players took their inability to lead shots and blamed it on the netcode, in addition to the random BR spread, which was clearly a design flaw. There were problems with the netcode that Reach solved, but most of the problems were heavily exaggerated and falsely attributed to netcode when they were actually design choices.
>
> Most people who bash Reach, will not say Halo 3 is a better game. Both Halo 3 and Reach have their own unique set of problems.

What you’re talking about is in general, the hosting quality, and how it diminishes. Which I agree with, but that’s not the main point here.

Coming from someone who almost always plays Big Team Battle, which puts the most stress on the network because of double the players of Team Slayer + A ton of vehicles, Halo: Reach has without a doubt the best network quality in the entire series, when both games were in their “prime”.

In fact, all I can find at fault with it is it needs to be a bit more strict on skill and not rely on Games Played so much to effect matchmaking outcomes.

Here’s a little story… When I first got Halo: Reach I would always search with Skill and Good Connection on. The matchmaking process would take a bit longer (Like around 5 minutes as opposed to only a minute or two with them off) and I can 100% say for a fact I always had a great connection and I never, NEVER got matched with a party over 2. This lasted for around 300 games or so. Finally I started seeing parties of 3, but only a few.

Once I had reached around 400 games played, either due to Bungie/343i’s lessening the strictness of the matchmaking on their end and/or my proposed theory, it seems like all hell hit the fan.

I was being matched consistently with parties of 6+ players, and I was never on the team with the large party. It’s because my Trueskill value was too high and I was deemed “too good” to be on that team. I had to help even out the Trueskill values. And boy does that suck.

Ok, with that out of the way, there is not a single other game on the market that brings network quality like Bungie does. Not a single other game even comes close.

Firstly, it is silky smooth. Halo 3 had plenty of lag, but Halo: Reach hardly ever had any issues. Even at my current new address, where the internet sucks, I can still play with no lag. It’s amazing.

Along with that, they actually use a matchmaking system that matches based on Skill. Most games claim to have this, but all they’re looking for is experience points level. While not being perfect and being a bit too loose in Halo: Reach, no other game matches players based on connection quality and skill levels of both teams. It is literally awe inspiring to those who understand how difficult it is to code an online game.

Even when both were in their “prime”, Halo: Reach is a significant leap in quality without a doubt. The Trueskill could be tighter, like I’ve said, but overall it’s a technical achievement that will never be mastered.

Unless 343i’s comes up with a whole new system, they’ll just be using a slightly tuned version of Bungie’s system, so Halo 4’s quality is pretty much null and void to who makes the best online multiplayer experiences.

Words can not describe how excited I am for Bungie’s new game. It’s going to be amazing.