Reasons Reach Did Bad & Prevention For Halo 4

Games Other Halo
1

Hello. Today I’m going to talk about the many reasons Halo: Reach felt poor compared to the other Halos and how Halo 4 can prevent this feeling. I’ll cover topics.

Topic 1: Incentive

A big problem with Halo: Reach was incentive. What do I mean by incentive? The drive to win. First let’s delve into the previous Halo’s incentives. In Halo: CE, a lot of people would get together with friends, connect their Xboxes together, and LAN it up. The game was fun. It was especially fun when you won. Why, though? It made you feel good. It gave you bragging rights. In Halo 2 and Halo 3, players would try their very best to win every single game they played. Screwing around was risky. Why? Ranks. In Halo 2 and Halo 3, players were rewarded for their performance and for whether or not they’d won the match.

However, in Halo: Reach, the incentive is nearly not existent. Players would tittle-prance around knowing that, whether they win or lose, they’ll be rewarded. This would result in most matches being non-competitive, annoying, and boring.

How can this be fixed? First thing is first. A proper ranking system. Halo 4 needs to have a ranking system that bases skill off of, well, skill. This will return the incentive to the players. “If everything is ranked, everyone will be too competitive!” Well, that’s where social/unranked playlists come in. I also personally believe there should be a separate yet visible rank that’s based off of experience. Experience is gained simply through playing but does NOT affect who is paired against who. It’s for bragging, but doesn’t affect the game much so people won’t tittle–Yoink- around anymore.

Topic 2: Maps

Another problem with Halo: Reach is map-selection. Let’s be honest, the memorability of Reach maps is lacking. Halo: CE had Hang 'Em High, Prisoner, Blood Gulch, Battle Creek, etc. Halo 2 had Midship, Sanctuary, Lockout, Zanzibar, Warlock, Terminal, etc. Halo 3 had The Pit, Guardian, High Ground, Construct. Halo: Reach has… uh… Forge… World? They’re pretty sucky, honestly. There’s a very small selection of good maps.

What’s wrong with the maps though? Why don’t they feel fun like the old ones? Map flow. This is the main problem. The maps were designed around specific armor abilities. A lot of the maps would basically almost force the player to choose a certain armor ability (e.g. Sword Base) to have an advantage. Not only this, but the map flow in general was just bad. This was a result of armor abilities. Map flow was broken by armor abilities. A jetpack player could reach places easier. Sprint players could get places faster than others. Armor lock players slowed gameplay entirely. There was never any map control; it was always erratic.

How can this be fixed? Well first, the maps need to not be designed with armor abilities in mind. A jetpack player shouldn’t do better on X map because the camo player didn’t choose jetpack. Another thing: design the armor abilities to be less… able to break maps. Jetpack, I think, should be a map pick-up instead of an armor ability. Sprint is available to everyone at once and armor lock’s out. It’s already looking better.

Topic 3: Esprit De Corps

Ever notice how often people work as a team in Halo: Reach? Me neither. Everyone plays by themselves (mainly due to grinding kills for credits). Halo 2 and Halo 3 had a VERY strong sense of teamwork on team gametypes. Let me bring up some examples. In Halo 2’s 2 Flag, players relied on their teammates to defend the flag while others went for the opposing team’s flag. People wanted to win, so they cooperated, strategized, and tried their best to rank up. In Halo 3, it worked the very same way. Let’s look at Last Resort 1 Bomb. The attacking team would storm the base at all different directions to attempt to confuse the defending team. The attacking team would hold off all defenders to let their teammate plant and score. The winning team would rewarded for winning.

In Halo: Reach, no one cared about winning objectives or working together… or even winning the match! Everyone would go off on their own and kill as many players by themselves as they could to get credits. In Flag and Bomb, the objective would be left untouched nearly the whole game every time due to the lack of incentive which also led to the lack of teammwork; something very iconic about the previous Halos.

Conclusion:

There are many reasons Halo: Reach felt poor, and I felt I’ve covered some of the main issues. I missed many though, as I can only type so much. Please feel free to share your opinions and discuss how Halo 4 can prevent itself from failure.

2

Don’t forget the way that AA’s, bloom, wide field of view, and slow movement acceleration (while relatively minor problems on their own) combined to produce gameplay with a jarring rhythm. This may be my opinion only, but Reach’s gameplay felt, for lack of a better word, uncomfortable

3

> Hello. Today I’m going to talk about the many reasons Halo: Reach felt poor compared to the other Halos and how Halo 4 can prevent this feeling. I’ll cover topics.
>
> Topic 1: Incentive
>
> A big problem with Halo: Reach was incentive. What do I mean by incentive? The drive to win. First let’s delve into the previous Halo’s incentives. In Halo: CE, a lot of people would get together with friends, connect their Xboxes together, and LAN it up. The game was fun. It was especially fun when you won. Why, though? It made you feel good. It gave you bragging rights. In Halo 2 and Halo 3, players would try their very best to win every single game they played. Screwing around was risky. Why? Ranks. In Halo 2 and Halo 3, players were rewarded for their performance and for whether or not they’d won the match.
>
> However, in Halo: Reach, the incentive is nearly not existent. Players would tittle-prance around knowing that, whether they win or lose, they’ll be rewarded. This would result in most matches being non-competitive, annoying, and boring.
>
> How can this be fixed? First thing is first. A proper ranking system. Halo 4 needs to have a ranking system that bases skill off of, well, skill. This will return the incentive to the players. “If everything is ranked, everyone will be too competitive!” Well, that’s where social/unranked playlists come in. I also personally believe there should be a separate yet visible rank that’s based off of experience. Experience is gained simply through playing but does NOT affect who is paired against who. It’s for bragging, but doesn’t affect the game much so people won’t tittle-Yoink! around anymore.
>
> Topic 2: Maps
>
> Another problem with Halo: Reach is map-selection. Let’s be honest, the memorability of Reach maps is lacking. Halo: CE had Hang 'Em High, Prisoner, Blood Gulch, Battle Creek, etc. Halo 2 had Midship, Sanctuary, Lockout, Zanzibar, Warlock, Terminal, etc. Halo 3 had The Pit, Guardian, High Ground, Construct. Halo: Reach has… uh… Forge… World? They’re pretty sucky, honestly. There’s a very small selection of good maps.
>
> What’s wrong with the maps though? Why don’t they feel fun like the old ones? Map flow. This is the main problem. The maps were designed around specific armor abilities. A lot of the maps would basically almost force the player to choose a certain armor ability (e.g. Sword Base) to have an advantage. Not only this, but the map flow in general was just bad. This was a result of armor abilities. Map flow was broken by armor abilities. A jetpack player could reach places easier. Sprint players could get places faster than others. Armor lock players slowed gameplay entirely. There was never any map control; it was always erratic.
>
> How can this be fixed? Well first, the maps need to not be designed with armor abilities in mind. A jetpack player shouldn’t do better on X map because the camo player didn’t choose jetpack. Another thing: design the armor abilities to be less… able to break maps. Jetpack, I think, should be a map pick-up instead of an armor ability. Sprint is available to everyone at once and armor lock’s out. It’s already looking better.
>
> Topic 3: Esprit De Corps
>
> Ever notice how often people work as a team in Halo: Reach? Me neither. Everyone plays by themselves (mainly due to grinding kills for credits). Halo 2 and Halo 3 had a VERY strong sense of teamwork on team gametypes. Let me bring up some examples. In Halo 2’s 2 Flag, players relied on their teammates to defend the flag while others went for the opposing team’s flag. People wanted to win, so they cooperated, strategized, and tried their best to rank up. In Halo 3, it worked the very same way. Let’s look at Last Resort 1 Bomb. The attacking team would storm the base at all different directions to attempt to confuse the defending team. The attacking team would hold off all defenders to let their teammate plant and score. The winning team would rewarded for winning.
>
> In Halo: Reach, no one cared about winning objectives or working together… or even winning the match! Everyone would go off on their own and kill as many players by themselves as they could to get credits. In Flag and Bomb, the objective would be left untouched nearly the whole game every time due to the lack of incentive which also led to the lack of teammwork; something very iconic about the previous Halos.
>
> Conclusion:
>
> There are many reasons Halo: Reach felt poor, and I felt I’ve covered some of the main issues. I missed many though, as I can only type so much. Please feel free to share your opinions and discuss how Halo 4 can prevent itself from failure.

Reach was not a fail.

It actually has about as many people on it as did Halo 3 in it’s prime.

People think it’s a failure because of the counter.

The Halo 3 counter counts EVERYONE who played Halo 3 in the day you are looking at it.

The Reach counter looks at only the people who are currently playing the game when you look at it.

The Reach counter makes it look like far fewer people are playing Reach, but that is simply not true.

If someone starts playing Halo 3 at 1:00 PM and stops at 2:00 PM, and someone else plays at 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM. Then if you look at the counter at 4:00 PM, it will say that 2 people are online.

But with Reach, if you have the same situation, when you look at the counter at 4:00 PM, it will say 0 people are online.

Of course, far more than 2 people play these games all of the time, but this is just an example.

The Reach counter can make it look like only 1/3rd as many people are playing the game as were playing Halo 3 during its time.

They were both great games!

Neither Reach nor Halo 3 was a fail.

So please, do not create another “Reach is bad” thread.

4

> Don’t forget the way that AA’s, bloom, wide field of view, and slow movement acceleration (while relatively minor problems on their own) combined to produce gameplay with a jarring rhythm. This may be my opinion only, but Reach’s gameplay felt, for lack of a better word, uncomfortable

I don’t mind armor abilities, but I agree with the rest.

Although Sprint and Evade annoy me. It just seems unfair that someone else can run but I can’t.

However, Sprint will be fixed in Halo 4 as everyone will have it.

The rest of the abilities were just fun to have, but as not everyone liked them, there should be classic playlists in Halo 4.

5

> Reach was not a fail.
>
> It actually has about as many people on it as did Halo 3 in it’s prime.
>
> People think it’s a failure because of the counter.
>
> The Halo 3 counter counts EVERYONE who played Halo 3 in the day you are looking at it.
>
> The Reach counter looks at only the people who are currently playing the game when you look at it.
>
> The Reach counter makes it look like far fewer people are playing Reach, but that is simply not true.
>
> If someone starts playing Halo 3 at 1:00 PM and stops at 2:00 PM, and someone else plays at 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM. Then if you look at the counter at 4:00 PM, it will say that 2 people are online.
>
> But with Reach, if you have the same situation, when you look at the counter at 4:00 PM, it will say 0 people are online.
>
> Of course, far more than 2 people play these games all of the time, but this is just an example.
>
> The Reach counter can make it look like only 1/3rd as many people are playing the game as were playing Halo 3 during its time.
>
> They were both great games!
>
> Neither Reach nor Halo 3 was a fail.
>
> So please, do not create another “Reach is bad” thread.

How do you know this?

6

> Reach was not a fail.
>
> It actually has about as many people on it as did Halo 3 in it’s prime.
>
> People think it’s a failure because of the counter.
>
> The Halo 3 counter counts EVERYONE who played Halo 3 in the day you are looking at it.
>
> The Reach counter looks at only the people who are currently playing the game when you look at it.
>
> The Reach counter makes it look like far fewer people are playing Reach, but that is simply not true.
>
> If someone starts playing Halo 3 at 1:00 PM and stops at 2:00 PM, and someone else plays at 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM. Then if you look at the counter at 4:00 PM, it will say that 2 people are online.
>
> But with Reach, if you have the same situation, when you look at the counter at 4:00 PM, it will say 0 people are online.
>
> Of course, far more than 2 people play these games all of the time, but this is just an example.
>
> The Reach counter can make it look like only 1/3rd as many people are playing the game as were playing Halo 3 during its time.
>
> They were both great games!
>
> Neither Reach nor Halo 3 was a fail.
>
> So please, do not create another “Reach is bad” thread.

I never said it was a fail nor did I mention anything about the amount of players per game.

7

Zealot and Countdown were plenty memorable. I haven’t played Reach for more than a year but if you gave me 2-3 pieces of paper I could trace out the floor plans for each map.

Anyways, your other points are just wrong. Halo 3 had plenty of people acting like idiots and people rarely played the objective in matchmaking just like in Reach… which was actually frustrating in that game because your teammates stupidity screwed YOU out of progression in SOCIAL gametypes.

8

> > Reach was not a fail.
> >
> > It actually has about as many people on it as did Halo 3 in it’s prime.
> >
> > People think it’s a failure because of the counter.
> >
> > The Halo 3 counter counts EVERYONE who played Halo 3 in the day you are looking at it.
> >
> > The Reach counter looks at only the people who are currently playing the game when you look at it.
> >
> > The Reach counter makes it look like far fewer people are playing Reach, but that is simply not true.
> >
> > If someone starts playing Halo 3 at 1:00 PM and stops at 2:00 PM, and someone else plays at 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM. Then if you look at the counter at 4:00 PM, it will say that 2 people are online.
> >
> > But with Reach, if you have the same situation, when you look at the counter at 4:00 PM, it will say 0 people are online.
> >
> > Of course, far more than 2 people play these games all of the time, but this is just an example.
> >
> > The Reach counter can make it look like only 1/3rd as many people are playing the game as were playing Halo 3 during its time.
> >
> > They were both great games!
> >
> > Neither Reach nor Halo 3 was a fail.
> >
> > So please, do not create another “Reach is bad” thread.
>
> I never said it was a fail nor did I mention anything about the amount of players per game.

Sorry, I just saw the title saying Reach and Bad in the same place.

Just had to throw it out there before someone else comes and says Reach was a fail that didn’t succeed nearly as well as H3.

9

> > Don’t forget the way that AA’s, bloom, wide field of view, and slow movement acceleration (while relatively minor problems on their own) combined to produce gameplay with a jarring rhythm. This may be my opinion only, but Reach’s gameplay felt, for lack of a better word, uncomfortable
>
> I don’t mind armor abilities, but I agree with the rest.
>
> Although Sprint and Evade annoy me. It just seems unfair that someone else can run but I can’t.
>
> However, Sprint will be fixed in Halo 4 as everyone will have it.
>
> The rest of the abilities were just fun to have, but as not everyone liked them, <mark>there should be classic playlists in Halo 4</mark>.

And 343i has stated that there will be, but I’ll likely only play classic a few times. Halo 4’s base gameplay seems like the next evolution of Halo 3, with AA’s added. I don’t think anything besides the weapon spawn system will really change the way most people play Halo, and I really look forward to it. Keeping players engaged is a MUST, though, and while 343i seems to be pursuing that via Spartan Ops and weapon progression, they’d really benefit from reading this thread as well

Edit: Also, something that should be added to the 3rd section of the OP, if Bowser doesn’t mind, is the matching of people with headsets to people with other headsets. This greatly -Yoink!- teamwork, even if players aren’t talking to each other about the game, because it connects a team better. I’ve seen it countless times where teammates will stick together in groups simply because they feel a connection with the other players on their team

10

While I do not think Reach did (or is doing) bad at all, I am glad that finally someone is making points other than “WE HATE AA’S HRRNRNNN!!111!!!”

Seeing as, while implemented not as well as they could have been, AA’s where probably the best part about Reach (Except maybe AL and GoWVade. I don’t know why everyone hates on Jetpack,the maps are designed with those in mind, so it really isn’t breaking map control anyway, Except maybe on Swords Base (where you camp the Lift room), Paradiso/Utopie (where you camp the cliffs/bashee spawn) or Camptown (where you camp the medkit at the top).

Those maps suck anyway.

11

I agree that Reach had bad maps, lacked incitament to win, was random but you all forgot one very important thing…
Support from the devs! Halo CE, 2, 3, even ODST and Wars was supported by the devs with patches and bug-fixes, even re-balancing weapon and vehicles to make the gaming experience better, not to mention banning cheaters.
In Reach, all Bungie ever did was 1 simple TU and spent the rest of the year promoting their DLC! Not until 343i took over Halo Reach did we see some major updates, and those updates have (imo) “saved” Reach, or made it a lot better.
A game that ain’t even supported by the devs, where bugs are plenty and people are free to cheat and boost, even encouraged (by Bungie to credit boost for a while) is just sickening, such game can never survive!

12

While I won’t say Reach was bad, which it wasn’t for me, I agree with some of those points.

The team stuff I agree with completely, and the Maps. While maps need to be designed to some extent with armor abilities in mind, it shouldn’t be dependent, like you said. And I have faith that 343i knows this and will make not only awesome maps, but completely functioning maps. They are also working to balance all the abilities, so its like “rock, paper, scissors”; instead of the “rock, paper, paper, paper” that Reach was described as.

13

> While I do not think Reach did (or is doing) bad at all, I am glad that finally someone is making points other than “WE HATE AA’S HRRNRNNN!!111!!!”
>
> Seeing as, while implemented not as well as they could have been, AA’s where probably the best part about Reach (Except maybe AL and GoWVade. I don’t know why everyone hates on Jetpack,the maps are designed with those in mind, so it really isn’t breaking map control anyway, Except maybe on Swords Base (where you camp the Lift room), Paradiso/Utopie (where you camp the cliffs/bashee spawn) or Camptown (where you camp the medkit at the top).
>
>
> Those maps suck anyway.

IDK, I liked Paradiso, but only when I had a sniper or a Banshee. BTW, you forgot Reflection: that map is DOMINATED by jet pack

14

Sadly, it still looks like this stuff will carry over to Halo 4…I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

btw, People ITT, don’t even try to deny that Reach was a bad game. You and I both know it was nowhere near as good as the previous ones.

15

Yup. He was only stating points about reach that make it feel “worse” then other halo games. Reach by itself was a good game, but not the great game the previous halo was.

You really should add, slower movement speed, coupled with lower jump height hurts gameplay too. Its especially apparent with grenades (why i call them granukes) and vehicles.

16

> btw, People ITT, don’t even try to deny that Reach was a bad game. You and I both know it was nowhere near as good as the previous ones.

SIR YES SIR! YOUR WORD IS LAW, SIR!

17
  1. Bloom
  2. Lack of maps
  3. Forge world made everything grey
  4. No skill based MM - I went 134 Rumble Pit FFA matches in a row once in Reach without a loss
  5. Objectives and winning not the primary focus
  6. Armor Abilities
18

> > While I do not think Reach did (or is doing) bad at all, I am glad that finally someone is making points other than “WE HATE AA’S HRRNRNNN!!111!!!”
> >
> > Seeing as, while implemented not as well as they could have been, AA’s where probably the best part about Reach (Except maybe AL and GoWVade. I don’t know why everyone hates on Jetpack,the maps are designed with those in mind, so it really isn’t breaking map control anyway, Except maybe on Swords Base (where you camp the Lift room), Paradiso/Utopie (where you camp the cliffs/bashee spawn) or Camptown (where you camp the medkit at the top).
> >
> >
> > Those maps suck anyway.
>
> IDK, I liked Paradiso, but only when I had a sniper or a Banshee. BTW, you forgot Reflection: that map is DOMINATED by jet pack

I wouldn’t say “Dominated”. It definitely gave you an advantage, especially around the lift, but typically if anticipated, you would be shot down the moment you landed at the sniper/lift area.

19

> > > While I do not think Reach did (or is doing) bad at all, I am glad that finally someone is making points other than “WE HATE AA’S HRRNRNNN!!111!!!”
> > >
> > > Seeing as, while implemented not as well as they could have been, AA’s where probably the best part about Reach (Except maybe AL and GoWVade. I don’t know why everyone hates on Jetpack,the maps are designed with those in mind, so it really isn’t breaking map control anyway, Except maybe on Swords Base (where you camp the Lift room), Paradiso/Utopie (where you camp the cliffs/bashee spawn) or Camptown (where you camp the medkit at the top).
> > >
> > >
> > > Those maps suck anyway.
> >
> > IDK, I liked Paradiso, but only when I had a sniper or a Banshee. BTW, you forgot Reflection: that map is DOMINATED by jet pack
>
> I wouldn’t say “Dominated”. It definitely gave you an advantage, especially around the lift, but typically if anticipated, you would be shot down the moment you landed at the sniper/lift area.

Point, single people with Jetpack were easy to defend against, but the problem isn’t so much single people. If you have a full team of reds with DMR’s and a rocket launcher all flying up to the balcony simultaneously, it’s pretty hard (I’d say almost impossible) for blue team to hold the balcony.

20

> > Hello. Today I’m going to talk about the many reasons Halo: Reach felt poor compared to the other Halos and how Halo 4 can prevent this feeling. I’ll cover topics.
> >
> > Topic 1: Incentive
> >
> > A big problem with Halo: Reach was incentive. What do I mean by incentive? The drive to win. First let’s delve into the previous Halo’s incentives. In Halo: CE, a lot of people would get together with friends, connect their Xboxes together, and LAN it up. The game was fun. It was especially fun when you won. Why, though? It made you feel good. It gave you bragging rights. In Halo 2 and Halo 3, players would try their very best to win every single game they played. Screwing around was risky. Why? Ranks. In Halo 2 and Halo 3, players were rewarded for their performance and for whether or not they’d won the match.
> >
> > However, in Halo: Reach, the incentive is nearly not existent. Players would tittle-prance around knowing that, whether they win or lose, they’ll be rewarded. This would result in most matches being non-competitive, annoying, and boring.
> >
> > How can this be fixed? First thing is first. A proper ranking system. Halo 4 needs to have a ranking system that bases skill off of, well, skill. This will return the incentive to the players. “If everything is ranked, everyone will be too competitive!” Well, that’s where social/unranked playlists come in. I also personally believe there should be a separate yet visible rank that’s based off of experience. Experience is gained simply through playing but does NOT affect who is paired against who. It’s for bragging, but doesn’t affect the game much so people won’t tittle-Yoink! around anymore.
> >
> > Topic 2: Maps
> >
> > Another problem with Halo: Reach is map-selection. Let’s be honest, the memorability of Reach maps is lacking. Halo: CE had Hang 'Em High, Prisoner, Blood Gulch, Battle Creek, etc. Halo 2 had Midship, Sanctuary, Lockout, Zanzibar, Warlock, Terminal, etc. Halo 3 had The Pit, Guardian, High Ground, Construct. Halo: Reach has… uh… Forge… World? They’re pretty sucky, honestly. There’s a very small selection of good maps.
> >
> > What’s wrong with the maps though? Why don’t they feel fun like the old ones? Map flow. This is the main problem. The maps were designed around specific armor abilities. A lot of the maps would basically almost force the player to choose a certain armor ability (e.g. Sword Base) to have an advantage. Not only this, but the map flow in general was just bad. This was a result of armor abilities. Map flow was broken by armor abilities. A jetpack player could reach places easier. Sprint players could get places faster than others. Armor lock players slowed gameplay entirely. There was never any map control; it was always erratic.
> >
> > How can this be fixed? Well first, the maps need to not be designed with armor abilities in mind. A jetpack player shouldn’t do better on X map because the camo player didn’t choose jetpack. Another thing: design the armor abilities to be less… able to break maps. Jetpack, I think, should be a map pick-up instead of an armor ability. Sprint is available to everyone at once and armor lock’s out. It’s already looking better.
> >
> > Topic 3: Esprit De Corps
> >
> > Ever notice how often people work as a team in Halo: Reach? Me neither. Everyone plays by themselves (mainly due to grinding kills for credits). Halo 2 and Halo 3 had a VERY strong sense of teamwork on team gametypes. Let me bring up some examples. In Halo 2’s 2 Flag, players relied on their teammates to defend the flag while others went for the opposing team’s flag. People wanted to win, so they cooperated, strategized, and tried their best to rank up. In Halo 3, it worked the very same way. Let’s look at Last Resort 1 Bomb. The attacking team would storm the base at all different directions to attempt to confuse the defending team. The attacking team would hold off all defenders to let their teammate plant and score. The winning team would rewarded for winning.
> >
> > In Halo: Reach, no one cared about winning objectives or working together… or even winning the match! Everyone would go off on their own and kill as many players by themselves as they could to get credits. In Flag and Bomb, the objective would be left untouched nearly the whole game every time due to the lack of incentive which also led to the lack of teammwork; something very iconic about the previous Halos.
> >
> > Conclusion:
> >
> > There are many reasons Halo: Reach felt poor, and I felt I’ve covered some of the main issues. I missed many though, as I can only type so much. Please feel free to share your opinions and discuss how Halo 4 can prevent itself from failure.
>
> Reach was not a fail.
>
> It actually has about as many people on it as did Halo 3 in it’s prime.
>
> People think it’s a failure because of the counter.
>
> The Halo 3 counter counts EVERYONE who played Halo 3 in the day you are looking at it.
>
> The Reach counter looks at only the people who are currently playing the game when you look at it.
>
> The Reach counter makes it look like far fewer people are playing Reach, but that is simply not true.
>
> If someone starts playing Halo 3 at 1:00 PM and stops at 2:00 PM, and someone else plays at 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM. Then if you look at the counter at 4:00 PM, it will say that 2 people are online.
>
> But with Reach, if you have the same situation, when you look at the counter at 4:00 PM, it will say 0 people are online.
>
> Of course, far more than 2 people play these games all of the time, but this is just an example.
>
> The Reach counter can make it look like only 1/3rd as many people are playing the game as were playing Halo 3 during its time.
>
> They were both great games!
>
> Neither Reach nor Halo 3 was a fail.
>
> So please, do not create another “Reach is bad” thread.

I think you missed the point a bit. He isnt bashing reach hes just sayin most people consider it not as good as previous halo’s, thats all. He wants Halo 4 to be better, so chill.