Reach > H3 (?)

Alright, I’m tired of nuts all over these forums stating “Reach was a failure”, “Reach ruined Halo”, “If Halo 4 is like Reach I’m not getting it”. I understand that alot of people consider Halo 3 their favorite of the Halo games. But for some reason, these morons think that their opinion is fact and decry what they don’t like as a failure.

Ignoring, of course, the fact that Reach is considered by the majority to be the best since Combat Evolved. I mean, sure, it had its flaws, every game (including H3) does, but everything else was so well done it buried the bad parts so deep only someone who’s actively LOOKING for flaws (i.e., all the Reach haters) would dig them up and stop playing because of them.

Am I the only one here who thinks Reach was a step up from Halo 3?

Overall it’s a step up. In terms of graphics, forge, etc. In terms of gameplay, it depends on the person.

This is one of the threads that makes me wonder if flaming the OP is allowed in these forums.

Haters going to hate but nobody should force opinions on others so if we hate reach, pay money then should be allowed to say how bad it is or 343i won’t know what to change.

There was nothing in Reach that was particularly well done, except maybe Invasion and Firefight. But they -Yoinked!- up Firefight and Invasion is a hellhole.

> “Reach was a failure”,

I agree with that statement.

> “Reach ruined Halo”,

I disagree with that statement.

> “If Halo 4 is like Reach I’m not getting it”.

There can be a reasonable explanation for that.

> I understand that alot of people consider Halo 3 their favorite of the Halo games.

Nope, not me. I prefer CE.

> Ignoring, of course, the fact that Reach is considered by the majority to be the best since Combat Evolved.
>
> I mean, sure, it had its flaws, every game (including H3) does,

Since H2 actually.

No Halo game has come close to CE. H3 does have some semblance but gameplay is severely lacking which is why it goes unnoticed.

For example, H3 has (from CE):

-active AI in a cutscene, thanks to the resurrection ability and a certain cutscene not removing AI
-checkpoint fountains. On Halo, Silent Cartographer, and AotCR, there are places that will give you a checkpoint if you keep visiting them. In H3, there’s one spot on The Storm, at the area where the Brute pummels a worker and another spot on The Covenant, near the third tower entrance
-Hunter kill checkpoints. Killing Hunters in CE could yield a checkpoint. Killing Hunters in H3 also yields a checkpoint
-Flood buddies
-hog run
-a megabattle

Reach tried to be like CE but in the end it was more like a fusion of the trilogy. Anyone who has tried out Anniversary’s skulls has the capacity to understand that trying to implement CE in/with newer games will only result in corruption of that holy gameplay. This kind of thing should have been a 2-3 year endeavor, handled very carefully yet Reach was 1 year development. Sure it’s a feat to get the game completed by 2010 but let’s face it, it was a short campaign filled with thrills that rapidly became teases and the mp was a disappointment (the maps, the worsened mechanics).

Had Reach tried to be it’s own game or had been purely CE, then it wouldn’t have failed.

But no, it implemented things that only work well in CE. The vehicle rule was exchanging durability for power and vehicle health was thrown in yet CE’s mp did not have destroyable vehicles. That was campaign only.

Sure the plasma pistol is powerful again. But the plasma rifle and needler did not get the same treatment. Plus, they did not restore the plasma pistol overcharge’s range, only made it do damage, gave it better homing, and made it so that you could quickly charge it and there was less waiting time (meaning you could fire plasma pistol bolts after an overcharge). This only makes it useful for the enemy, which is spammed by them like crazy. Another weapon that was only useful for the enemy in combat was the concussion rifle, which is also spammed like crazy. And let’s not forget about the plasma repeater. In enemy hands, this does a lot of damage but in the player’s, also useless. Bottomless clip enemies has to go.

My point is, Reach’s difficulty emphasis was an insult to CE’s balance emphasis. Reach adopted H3’s ‘more health per rank’ and aggression and H2’s ‘player positioning affecting AI’ but did not restore the elements of stealth and immersion of CE. Firing your gun is just going to get the enemy’s attention. Waking up a sleeping Grunt will result in a Grunt that’s always alert.

> but everything else was so well done it buried the bad parts so deep only someone who’s actively LOOKING for flaws (i.e., all the Reach haters) would dig them up and stop playing because of them.

Nope.

I wasn’t looking for flaws when I did my LNoS setups. By LNoS setups, I mean in the Reach Demo (as I still haven’t purchased the full game), I spent time trying to find ways to gain control of the battlefield.

Sending Jorge up the cliffs due to his superior range as a distraction with a rocket launcher trooper stationed near the armor abilities case and a Wraith on the right made a deadly combo and allowed me to mobilize without worrying about getting shot down, moving crates scattered over the beach into a line then using UNSC shields to stop marines and grunts from climbing over them or leaving a little opening so I can only fight Elites.

I managed to gain 75% dominance over the area, assassinating Ultra Elites without being impeded by the lower ranking enemies. From various positions: cliff, underwater, out of the map. Of course, this was on Heroic or Legendary so I had to do it on Co-op so I could respawn.

I also encountered an interesting glitch that made Elites that did a big jump start crouching all the time. I still have the video of my first encounter which was on Legendary. However, it didn’t last long. And by that I mean, there was no way to save it and eventually, the Elite departed for the main beach battle and got killed. I spent 4 hours with him so don’t try to say that I’m being unreasonable. I’ve hated Halo’s checkpoint system for so long and the only Halo game that actually changed it was H2 with it’s unfortunately stupid ‘5 times revert to second last checkpoint’.

While in a Wraith, I got overcharged spam by Jackals. While in a Wraith, if I get boarded by an Elite, I have no way to defend myself. When I tried to stop friendly AI from boosting the Wraith into the enemies by getting them stuck over stairs all the way back from the beach, they ended up firing at enemies from an odd angle, even though they weren’t facing the enemy. And let’s not forget how the Wraith pilots have great eyesight and can hit you from long distances. Finally, the friendly AI Wraith pilots don’t give a -Yoink- about friendly fire. When I was on the top of the map, if I went to a certain location, almost always, I get hit by their mortar.

Another problem. Bobs. Easter eggs are ok when they don’t get in the way of gameplay. Bobs apparently have superior AI and are tougher than most Elites. But the problem is, they disappear so fast and you’re often feeling robbed of a kill. Not to mention their disappearance is instantaneous. There’s no initial cloaking to make the “transition” look smooth. Very, very immersion breaking.

I also got all the troopers dropped off by the Pelican armed with rocket launchers but they inevitably blow themselves up and they are pathetic in cqc as they don’t do melee damage and they don’t back away.

> Am I the only one here who thinks Reach was a step up from Halo 3?

It was mostly a downgrade. The only AI improvement I’ve seen is this animation where troopers toss a grenade while remaining in cover. Also, the menu no longer has switch lobby (or does it?).

So I’m not mindlessly hating Reach. I’m hating it because I spent many hours trying to find new ways to play it and got impeded. And because the conventional combat can be so dull (which is what drove me to seek out new ways to play it). Of course, I dislike H3 more…

I love Reach (with the exception of jetpacks), I certainly think its the best since CE or maybe 2. And even though it’s a good game and I love it too, Halo 3 is the worst Halo in my opinion. (Wars and ODST doesn’t count) And a lot of that has to do with 3’s projectile/spread system, it’s terrible . And Reach wasn’t a failure it sold really well and according to Bungie’s data it was on pace to be the most played Halo to date. The bottom line is Reach tried new things, some of them need to go (movement speed/jump height), some of them can be improved and better balanced (AA’s/bloom)

> Am I the only one here who thinks Reach was a step up from Halo 3?

Nope, but for the most part, forums are for people to complain and talk about how much better the last game was compared to the newest version.

While not being on forums for Halo during transitions between the old game and the new one, I have been told it has happened every single time without fail. Which means we will see if this theory holds true through the transition from Reach to Halo 4. That is when we should be treated to a new round of"this game sucks (Halo 4) because Reach was like this and now in Halo 4 its like this"

> There was nothing in Reach that was particularly well done, except maybe Invasion and Firefight. But they -Yoinked!- up Firefight and Invasion is a hellhole.

I don’t know how messed up firefight since Odst had the foundations for a good game type then Reach touched it, seems anything Reach touches becomes ruined.

Reach wasn’t a bad game, it was just nowhere near the standard we are used to seeing from the Halo franchise.

Reach brought some good ideas to the table, but they were poorly executed. Lots of small problems are what tripped it up. Gameplay is the most important part of a game, ask anyone, b/c it’s the only aspect of the game (other than graphics) that appears in every aspect of a game. So if the game plays terrible it’s really difficult to convince gamers to keep playing no matter how good it looks or how many features it has. This is why Reach has a lower population this long into it’s life cycle than it’s predecessors.

Also, Reach never really introduced that “killer new feature” that previous titles did. Halo 1’s campaign, Halo 2’s multiplayer experience, Halo 3’s Theater/Forge modes, and ODST’s Firefight. All Reach did was take these concepts, bring them together, and polish them off (although somehow ruining them in the process). The only thing Reach really improved on was Forge by turning it into a map creator instead of a map editor, but it too was tripped up by small things like lag issues.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Reach just ported those things as they were instead of tweaking them to fit Reach, then Reach would’ve much more well-received.

> Ignoring, of course, the fact that Reach is considered by the majority to be the best since Combat Evolved.

Fact? Hell no. the population of Halo 3 at this time in it’s cycle compared to Halo Reach at this time says otherwise. And don’t come at me with ‘tougher competition’ or ‘more games’ response because that fails hard. Halo 3 had plenty of competition from Gears, CoD and Battlefield just like Reach.

I will however agree with you on the fact that Halo Reach is a step up on things like graphics, forge and custom game options. That’s something no one can deny. If only Reach wasn’t so grainy and had motion blur because Bungie felt 30fps needed to be masked by crap blurring.

Dear me.

> This is one of the threads that makes me wonder if flaming the OP is allowed in these forums.
>
> Haters going to hate but nobody should force opinions on others so if we hate reach, pay money then should be allowed to say how bad it is or 343i won’t know what to change.

Not saying Halo 3 was a bad game. I simply hate it that a good portion of people here have this idea that just because something wasn’t their cup of tea, so to speak, it’s terrible and its fans mentally challenged. What I’ve realized is that if you ask 100 fans the order of games from best to worst, you’ll get a thousand different opinions; it’s almost unbelievable how varied the opinions are. Some people think ODST was good, while many think it’s trash. Heck some people think Halo Wars was the best.

And it’s not just the individual games. Some people think the needle rifle, or the grenade launcher, or the DMR, or so on and so forth, is horrible and anyone who uses it is a moron, their only reasoning being “it doesn’t appeal to me personally”. Same with maps, characters, enemies, etc. It’s just so irritating that so many people are so unaware of how idiotic it is. At least I can cope with stuff I don’t like.

If my original post sounded like a Halo 3 hate-fest, chock that up to frustration-rant brought on by surfing the forums. I really do like Halo 3, I just like Reach better, and that somehow makes me less than human to some people.

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not flame or attack other members.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

> There was nothing in Reach that was particularly well done, except maybe Invasion and Firefight. But they -Yoinked!- up Firefight and Invasion is a hellhole.

1v1 halo reach. Dont talk -Yoink- about a game until you have played it enough to get good at it. Also Invasion is a mix between casual and competitive and is a great game type but I dont expect you to notice these this seeing that you have a minor case of retardation sry.

Reach was a total downgrade to the entire halo franchise in my opinion. I loved every Halo game right up until the point reach beta and the retail version of it came out.

Now we have a cod-halo hybrid game running around where people can use armor lock to get out of deaths they should have had and a progressive rank system which is so lax I constantly get guests or inheritors on my team who drop -13 k/d’s. Gone are the days where players can get legit kills and not have cheap gameplay cod like gimmicks steal your kills. What made Halo classic, original, and apart from other modern shooters these days has been killed.

> Alright, I’m tired of nuts all over these forums stating “Reach was a failure”, “Reach ruined Halo”, “If Halo 4 is like Reach I’m not getting it”. I understand that alot of people consider Halo 3 their favorite of the Halo games. But for some reason, these morons think that their opinion is fact and decry what they don’t like as a failure.
>
> Ignoring, of course, the fact that Reach is <mark>considered by the majority to be the best since Combat Evolved</mark>. I mean, sure, it had its flaws, every game (including H3) does, but everything else was so well done it buried the bad parts so deep only someone who’s actively LOOKING for flaws (i.e., all the Reach haters) would dig them up and stop playing because of them.
>
> Am I the only one here who thinks Reach was a step up from Halo 3?

Credibility gone.

Also, i dont call Armorlock, broken bloom, camo, double meleeing, broken sprint, no bleed through, easy to use sniper, no alpha zombie at start, no VIP, dropshield, (i could go on forever) to be “minor flaws”.

Well, I got to say that Reach has prettier graphics then previous games, and during the beta it had the best weapon balance seen for many years. It got an almost (too) impressive number of playlists and even Forge got improved.
However, gameplay is worse, the current weapon balance is worse, vehicles are worse, campaign is just one long corridor-shooter like CoD and horrible, Firefight is weak and repetitive, Theatre worse, DLC worse, lag worse.
Reach does have a few strengths and did some thing better then Halo 3, but over all Halo 3 delivered a better gaming experience for a longer time, Halo 3 got bad by time, while Reach was bad even before release.

It definitely depends on the person. After all, “good” is a subjective term.

I wasn’t around for the glory days of Halo 3, so Reach automatically feels the “best” to me. Even when I go to play Halo 3, I’m reminded why I enjoy Reach so much. The better netcode of Reach means almost no lagtastic matches for me, hitscan is a big step up from H3, I thoroughly enjoy Firefight in Reach, and I love the graphics in Reach.

Although, I do prefer the arena-style maps from H3 over Reach, rather than just stealing sections from campaign.

It does depend on the person. I don’t think Reach was a bad game it was just Halo 3 created some huge boots to fill. Plus everyone had Halo 3, even all my CoD die hard friends. There were just more people I feel and everyone enjoyed it if they gave it a shot.

> This is one of the threads that makes me wonder if flaming the OP is allowed in these forums.
>
> Haters going to hate but <mark>nobody should force opinions on others</mark> so if we hate reach, pay money then <mark>should be allowed to say how bad it is or 343i won’t know what to change.</mark>

Sounds to me like you are

Reach has better graphics and a better Forge, but that’s all I’m giving it.

The story, imo, is the worst in the entire franchise, since it tries too hard to be this dramatic action movie and fails. Halo 3’s space opera and ODST’s psuedo-mystery weren’t anything to compete with Final Fantasy VI or Silent Hill 2, I admit, but imo, you could take those a lot more seriously than Reach’s story. It’s not BAD, but I just feel that it’s not exactly something I’d see in a Halo game. Not to mention the constant retcons it does to Fall of Reach.

The music, imo, simply doesn’t work. I don’t know why, but between ODST and Reach for “games that don’t really have a recognizable Halo theme in any of them,” I’d have to say that Reach did it worse, since, as many people have pointed out, it really feels like something I’d hear in some generic action movie. If you’re going to make a Halo game, please put the Halo theme in there SOMEWHERE.

Firefight is either ludicrously easy or ridiculously difficult, depending on whether you have a weapon crate or not. Doesn’t help that the recent Matchmaking Firefight additions have basically shown that 343i doesn’t intend for you to play Firefight as FIREFIGHT, but rather a Covie killing contest.

As many people have pointed out, the gameplay’s a mixed back. I, like many people, can’t stand some of the problems with balance from Bloom, Armor Lock, Jetpack, etc., but some people enjoy those, so I dunno. I would like to see AAs in Halo 4, I’ll admit, but I hope there’s better balance put into them, because as they are some (Active Camo) are completely worthless while others (Armor Lock) can be horrendously cheap.

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making posts that do not contribute to the topic at hand.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

> This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not flame or attack other members.
>
>
> *Original post. Click at your own discretion.
>
>
>
>
>
> > There was nothing in Reach that was particularly well done, except maybe Invasion and Firefight. But they -Yoinked!- up Firefight and Invasion is a hellhole.
>
> 1v1 halo reach. Dont talk Yoink! about a game until you have played it enough to get good at it. Also Invasion is a mix between casual and competitive and is a great game type but I dont expect you to notice these this seeing that you have a minor case of retardation sry.
>

sure ill 1v1 u gt is packsofbears

reach sucks