Reach didn't fail, it was Causal.

Games Other Halo
1

I don’t get why everyone always says Reach failed, it didn’t, it was a very fun game.

But why you don’t like it is because you’re competitive gamers, right? And Reach wasn’t
nearly as competitive as the other Halos.

Reach is a casual Halo game, Bungie was only trying to make it funner by making fun stuff
like jetpack and Active Camo and Armor Lock.

I mean, what’s cooler than being able to fly, or going invisible or being invincible?

But of course, when you look at it competitively it isn’t all that fun, jetpack breaks
map control, and armor lock just pauses the game.

Of course, I think Halo Reach is plenty competitive to me, I like dealing with the
challenge of having jetpackers try to take map control easier, or armor lockers trying to
avoid death. But that’s just me.

So I think that Reach wasn’t a total failure. It was just too casual for the competitive
community (which is what most of the halo community was made of).

Can you not accept that Halo Reach might not be bad, just casual. It’s not as balanced
or as skill rewarding as other Halos but it’s still fun.

CoD is SUPER casual and unbalanced, but it’s pretty popular right? Alot of people like
it because they’re not as competitive. (I’m sure most of you think CoD sucks right?)

So do you see what I’m saying?

Is Reach: A bad game or, just casual?

2

All games are casual until someone takes them and plays them competitively.

3

People claim that Reach was a fail, but they are wrong.

Read this thread:

http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=69301579&postRepeater1-p=1

4

> All games are casual until someone takes them and plays them competitively.

So true. I’ve experienced that.

5

> I don’t get why everyone always says Reach failed, it didn’t, it was a very fun game.
>
> But why you don’t like it is because you’re competitive gamers, right? And Reach wasn’t
> nearly as competitive as the other Halos.
>
> Reach is a casual Halo game, Bungie was only trying to make it funner by making fun stuff
> like jetpack and Active Camo and Armor Lock.
>
> I mean, what’s cooler than being able to fly, or going invisible or being invincible?
>
> But of course, when you look at it competitively it isn’t all that fun, jetpack breaks
> map control, and armor lock just pauses the game.
>
> Of course, I think Halo Reach is plenty competitive to me, I like dealing with the
> challenge of having jetpackers try to take map control easier, or armor lockers trying to
> avoid death. But that’s just me.
>
> So I think that Reach wasn’t a total failure. It was just too casual for the competitive
> community (which is what most of the halo community was made of).
>
> Can you not accept that Halo Reach might not be bad, just casual. It’s not as balanced
> or as skill rewarding as other Halos but it’s still fun.
>
> CoD is SUPER casual and unbalanced, but it’s pretty popular right? Alot of people like
> it because they’re not as competitive. (I’m sure most of you think CoD sucks right?)
>
> So do you see what I’m saying?
>
> Is Reach: A bad game or, just casual?

No reach puts off casual fans and competitives.

It caters to bad halo players.

6

I liked reach, but this doesnt have anything to do with H4…

7

To some people (myself NOT included, seeing as how I love Reach) seem to think that casual = failure, which is a real shame.

8

> > I don’t get why everyone always says Reach failed, it didn’t, it was a very fun game.
> >
> > But why you don’t like it is because you’re competitive gamers, right? And Reach wasn’t
> > nearly as competitive as the other Halos.
> >
> > Reach is a casual Halo game, Bungie was only trying to make it funner by making fun stuff
> > like jetpack and Active Camo and Armor Lock.
> >
> > I mean, what’s cooler than being able to fly, or going invisible or being invincible?
> >
> > But of course, when you look at it competitively it isn’t all that fun, jetpack breaks
> > map control, and armor lock just pauses the game.
> >
> > Of course, I think Halo Reach is plenty competitive to me, I like dealing with the
> > challenge of having jetpackers try to take map control easier, or armor lockers trying to
> > avoid death. But that’s just me.
> >
> > So I think that Reach wasn’t a total failure. It was just too casual for the competitive
> > community (which is what most of the halo community was made of).
> >
> > Can you not accept that Halo Reach might not be bad, just casual. It’s not as balanced
> > or as skill rewarding as other Halos but it’s still fun.
> >
> > CoD is SUPER casual and unbalanced, but it’s pretty popular right? Alot of people like
> > it because they’re not as competitive. (I’m sure most of you think CoD sucks right?)
> >
> > So do you see what I’m saying?
> >
> > Is Reach: A bad game or, just casual?
>
> No reach puts off casual fans and competitives.
>
> It caters to bad halo players.

How? Because Armor Lock? Good players can use it too you know.

9

> People claim that Reach was a fail, but they are wrong.
>
> Read this thread:
>
> http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=69301579&postRepeater1-p=1

no

the numbers of XBL population are always increasing. #s themselves dont matter, rather its teh % of the population halo commands thats important.

A game that goes from #1 for 10 years, #2 for 1 year and then back to #1 when its sequel is released all just to drop to #6 a few months later is a failure. pure and simple.

10

I just don’t understand why people don’t like it, there is no good reason. You can answer there problem with it and another will come up, I’m pretty sure people will act the same to Halo 4 when it released and wish they would go back to Reach. They will rarely talk about Halo 3, and Halo 2 will drift off into the abyss. Sound familiar?
If you don’t get it, I will spell it out it bold letters

11

A game that doesn’t cater to it’s entire fan base and results with a very low population of players is kind of a failure.

12

no no…reach failed because of atrocious bloom, armor lock, terrible movement speed and crappy maps.

idc if people are more casual and enjoyed it. those are the main reasons.

it created more ‘omg thats limited’ moments and turned a bunch of people off from the game. hell I went back to halo 2. every time I put reach in now, all I can think of is how much of a let down this game was.

so no, it’s not a failure because of casuals. it is a failure because failure was built into it.

13

> I don’t get why everyone always says Reach failed, it didn’t, it was a very fun game.
>
> But why you don’t like it is because you’re competitive gamers, right? And Reach wasn’t
> nearly as competitive as the other Halos.
>
> Reach is a casual Halo game, Bungie was only trying to make it funner by making fun stuff
> like jetpack and Active Camo and Armor Lock.
>
> I mean, what’s cooler than being able to fly, or going invisible or being invincible?
>
> But of course, when you look at it competitively it isn’t all that fun, jetpack breaks
> map control, and armor lock just pauses the game.
>
> Of course, I think Halo Reach is plenty competitive to me, I like dealing with the
> challenge of having jetpackers try to take map control easier, or armor lockers trying to
> avoid death. But that’s just me.
>
> So I think that Reach wasn’t a total failure. It was just too casual for the competitive
> community (which is what most of the halo community was made of).
>
> Can you not accept that Halo Reach might not be bad, just casual. It’s not as balanced
> or as skill rewarding as other Halos but it’s still fun.
>
> CoD is SUPER casual and unbalanced, but it’s pretty popular right? Alot of people like
> it because they’re not as competitive. (I’m sure most of you think CoD sucks right?)
>
> So do you see what I’m saying?
>
> Is Reach: A bad game or, just casual?

AL speeds up gameplay because if a ghost is boosting at me, I can (1) jump out of the way, or (2) AL and get a kill, isn’t 2 faster gameplay?

14

> no no…reach failed because of atrocious bloom, armor lock, terrible movement speed and crappy maps.
>
> idc if people are more casual and enjoyed it. those are the main reasons.
>
> it created more ‘omg thats limited’ moments and turned a bunch of people off from the game. hell I went back to halo 2. every time I put reach in now, all I can think of is how much of a let down this game was.
>
> so no, it’s not a failure because of casuals. it is a failure because failure was built into it.

Yet, you failed to tell how bloom and armor lock are bad. Nor how the maps were crappy

So your argument is invalid

15

> A game that doesn’t cater to it’s entire fan base and results with a very low population of players is kind of a failure.

You can never make everybody happy, 'nuff said. Just look at the complaints that came with the release of Halo 2 and Halo 3.

16

> > I don’t get why everyone always says Reach failed, it didn’t, it was a very fun game.
> >
> > But why you don’t like it is because you’re competitive gamers, right? And Reach wasn’t
> > nearly as competitive as the other Halos.
> >
> > Reach is a casual Halo game, Bungie was only trying to make it funner by making fun stuff
> > like jetpack and Active Camo and Armor Lock.
> >
> > I mean, what’s cooler than being able to fly, or going invisible or being invincible?
> >
> > But of course, when you look at it competitively it isn’t all that fun, jetpack breaks
> > map control, and armor lock just pauses the game.
> >
> > Of course, I think Halo Reach is plenty competitive to me, I like dealing with the
> > challenge of having jetpackers try to take map control easier, or armor lockers trying to
> > avoid death. But that’s just me.
> >
> > So I think that Reach wasn’t a total failure. It was just too casual for the competitive
> > community (which is what most of the halo community was made of).
> >
> > Can you not accept that Halo Reach might not be bad, just casual. It’s not as balanced
> > or as skill rewarding as other Halos but it’s still fun.
> >
> > CoD is SUPER casual and unbalanced, but it’s pretty popular right? Alot of people like
> > it because they’re not as competitive. (I’m sure most of you think CoD sucks right?)
> >
> > So do you see what I’m saying?
> >
> > Is Reach: A bad game or, just casual?
>
> AL speeds up gameplay because if a ghost is boosting at me, I can (1) jump out of the way, or (2) AL and get a kill, isn’t 2 faster gameplay?

I do not agree with all the armor lock hating. Although it does slow down gameplay, but
now that you pointed out it can also speed it up.

I agree with you :slight_smile:

17

bloom is bad because it favors spamming over timing your shots and always gives advantage to the host.

AL is bad because it kills the flow of the game and there is no other counter to it except to stand there and look dumb or walk away, giving up a kill that you earned.

the maps were crappy because they were designed mostly for campaign. there was very little flow to most of the maps and their layouts made most games unbalanced from the spawn. none of the maps were designed with AAs in mind, so what you got was either unmitigated chaos or total domination off spawn because once side of the map was better than the other.

the maps also didn’t seem to be designed for lower jump height/movement speed.

how about this? go play quake 3/shadowrun/halo 2 and then tell me the reach maps were good.

18

The part when he said that Halo 3’s population showed the amount of playeres in the last 24 hours is very very wrong.

Halo 3 would say “Gamers online-300,000”

Then, if you went on Bungie.net, there would be a counter saying “#of players in the last 24 hours” That number would be over a million!

If Halo 3’s counter displayed the # of players in 24 hours, it would have been over a million at all times.

Bottom line is Reach has a lower population in it’s point in life than Halo 3 did at the same age. End of story!

19

> > > I don’t get why everyone always says Reach failed, it didn’t, it was a very fun game.
> > >
> > > But why you don’t like it is because you’re competitive gamers, right? And Reach wasn’t
> > > nearly as competitive as the other Halos.
> > >
> > > Reach is a casual Halo game, Bungie was only trying to make it funner by making fun stuff
> > > like jetpack and Active Camo and Armor Lock.
> > >
> > > I mean, what’s cooler than being able to fly, or going invisible or being invincible?
> > >
> > > But of course, when you look at it competitively it isn’t all that fun, jetpack breaks
> > > map control, and armor lock just pauses the game.
> > >
> > > Of course, I think Halo Reach is plenty competitive to me, I like dealing with the
> > > challenge of having jetpackers try to take map control easier, or armor lockers trying to
> > > avoid death. But that’s just me.
> > >
> > > So I think that Reach wasn’t a total failure. It was just too casual for the competitive
> > > community (which is what most of the halo community was made of).
> > >
> > > Can you not accept that Halo Reach might not be bad, just casual. It’s not as balanced
> > > or as skill rewarding as other Halos but it’s still fun.
> > >
> > > CoD is SUPER casual and unbalanced, but it’s pretty popular right? Alot of people like
> > > it because they’re not as competitive. (I’m sure most of you think CoD sucks right?)
> > >
> > > So do you see what I’m saying?
> > >
> > > Is Reach: A bad game or, just casual?
> >
> > AL speeds up gameplay because if a ghost is boosting at me, I can (1) jump out of the way, or (2) AL and get a kill, isn’t 2 faster gameplay?
>
> I do not agree with all the armor lock hating. Although it does slow down gameplay, but
> now that you pointed out it can also speed it up.
>
> I agree with you :slight_smile:

AL > everything else (AA’s) in a game of splockets

20

> bloom is bad because it favors spamming over timing your shots and always gives advantage to the host.
>
> AL is bad because it kills the flow of the game and there is no other counter to it except to stand there and <mark>look dumb or walk away</mark>, giving up a kill that you earned.
>
> the maps were crappy because they were designed mostly for campaign. there was very little flow to most of the maps and their layouts made most games unbalanced from the spawn. none of the maps were designed with AAs in mind, so what you got was either unmitigated chaos or total domination off spawn because once side of the map was better than the other.
>
> the maps also didn’t seem to be designed for lower jump height/movement speed.
>
> how about this? go play quake 3/shadowrun/halo 2 and then tell me the reach maps were good.

Why would you look dumb? And why would you walk away? All you have to do is time a grenade
right. People basically trap themselves.

And why do people always say bloom rewards spammers? Most of the DMR battles are close
quarters anyway so you’re supposed shoot fast. But you can’t hit stuff across Blood
Gulch by spamming, can you?

And I have yet to see how maps don’t have good flow, iv’e heard that so many times, but
no one has proved it yet.