So Excited: H4 combo of H3 and Reach

Games Other Halo
1

From the many video interviews and articles I have seen/read the vast majority of reviews suggest that Halo 4 plays mostly like Halo 3 with a bit of Reach thrown in.

I played 3 hours of Halo last night; 1 hour of Halo 3 and 2 hours of Reach, and I noticed some things that make me really excited for Halo 4.

Compare and Contrast: H3 vs Reach

The pace of the game:
Halo 3 is fast paced, you are almost always in the middle of the action. However the movement speed felt slow when compared to Reach (I use sprint), so naturally it takes longer to get back into the action in a game of KotH or Oddball. The actual battles felt faster in Halo 3 due to the better strafe and jump height.

In one game I played on Sword Base (Reach,4v4) my team dominated from the get go. Part way through the score was 40-15 and the losing team decided to camp Energy Sword. My team was content with sitting on the clock and taking the ‘W’. However, I had just got done playing Halo 3 and was hungry for some action, so I naturally tried to take on the other team by myself to get the game going again. This obviously didn’t work until my team started to follow my lead.

Conclusion: Reach could have improved the pace of Halo, however due to poor map design it failed. Halo 4 will combine the pace of Reach with Halo 3 map design for a new gameplay experience like no other.

Matchmaking / Ranking System:
Most ppl complain about Reach’s matchmaking and say H4 needs a ranking system like H2 or H3. What I found last night however is that Reach has much more consistent matches than Halo 3. In H3 my first match was a game of Oddball where I was ranked #5 of 6 players (ranks 25-34ish), and I dominated the game winning 50 to 19 (i think). A few games later I was matched with a bunch of lower level players (12-18, I’m a 28) and I got completely destroyed. I seemed to play better against players ranked from 30-36 than ppl ranked below me. The ranking system is a complete disaster. Sure the matches are actually competitive (unlike Reach) but they are not consistent at all.
Both games seem to be optimized for quick matches. In Halo 3 there were times in Team Slayer and Lone Wolves where the game stopped trying to find a match and the game started with 4 players (LW) or 6 players (TS).

Conclusion: Halo 4 needs a good consistent skill based ranking system that works better than Halo 3.

The Triangle
Weapons: Halo 3 is dominated by the BR and the AR death charge. Halo Reach has some redundant weapons, but overall has a good balanced sandbox. Halo 4 needs to follow in Reach’s footsteps to have a great sandbox where every weapon is useful in its own regard.

Grenades: Many ppl feel that Reach’s grenades were over used and were quite OP (mini nukes). I think the opposite is true; Halo 3’s grenades were basically fire crackers. If someone is skilled enough to put a grenade between my legs I should not live through the explosion. Halo 4 needs grenades that are more powerful than Halo 3 but less so than Reach.

Melee: I personally liked the feel of Reach’s melee much better than Halo 3’s. It just feels more fluid and results in a lot less ’ wtf how did I die ’ moments, and more ’ you dirty little yoink, learn to use a gun ’ moments. Plaese don’t confuse this with shield mechanics (pop vs bleedthrough), I’m strictly talking about timing a melee correctly. Maybe it is just a combination of controller scheme and netcode, but Reach’s melee feels better.

Edit: Halo 4 needs to use a melee system like Halo 3, but have it feel fluid like Halo Reach.

Conclusion: If Halo 4 combines the best from both of these games with some new Halo-esque stuff, it is going to be the best Halo game by far.

2

Alright you got me.

“Halo Reach matches more consistent than Halo 3.”
“Halo Reach had a balanced Sandbox.”
“Halo Reach’s melee system was better than Halo 3’s”

That was a good one OP. I haven’t laughed that hard in a while

3

> Alright you got me.
>
> “Halo Reach matches more consistent than Halo 3.”
> “Halo Reach had a balanced Sandbox.”
> “Halo Reach’s melee system was better than Halo 3’s”
>
> That was a good one OP. I haven’t laughed that hard in a while

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. / Glad you enjoyed my post :slight_smile:

Pace of the Game: Reach could have improved the pace of Halo, however due to poor map design it failed. Halo 4 will combine the pace of Reach (movement) with Halo 3 map design (and battle mechanics:stafe/jump) for a new gameplay experience like no other.

Matchmaking / Ranking: Halo 4 needs a good consistent skill based ranking system that works better than Halo 3.

Weapons: Halo 4 needs to follow in Reach’s footsteps to have a great sandbox where every weapon is useful in its own regard.

Grenades: Halo 4 needs grenades that are more powerful than Halo 3 but less so than Reach.

Melee: Halo 4 needs to use a melee system like Halo 3, but have it feel fluid like Halo Reach.

Conclusion: If Halo 4 combines the best from both of these games with some new Halo-esque stuff, it is going to be the best Halo game by far.

4

Never thought of it that way…I like it!

5

Come on ppl there’s got to be someone who disagrees with me. So far completely agree is 100% of the vote. If you disagree, please state why.

6

I’d say it’s Halo 2, but with AA’s (seriously, besides bloom, this is the ONLY thing that’s returning from Reach) and some elements inspired by other shooter franchises, which I have nothing against as long as they work well.

7

The game-choosing mechanics in Reach are terrible. Letting the players vote leads to the same gametype over and over and over. The most blatant example is playing BTB and only getting BTB Slayer / BTB Heavies. The weight of slayer variants is far too high as well. This leads to less variety, and playing less than what is available in the game. Return to Halo 2 system of play what you get, or the H3 veto system.

8

why would they make a combo of the worst 2 games in the series instead of the best 2?

9

> > Alright you got me.
> >
> > “Halo Reach matches more consistent than Halo 3.”
> > “Halo Reach had a balanced Sandbox.”
> > “Halo Reach’s melee system was better than Halo 3’s”
> >
> > That was a good one OP. I haven’t laughed that hard in a while
>
> I think you missed the point I was trying to make. / Glad you enjoyed my post :slight_smile:
>
> Pace of the Game: Reach could have improved the pace of Halo, however due to poor map design it failed. Halo 4 will combine the pace of Reach (movement) with Halo 3 map design (and battle mechanics:stafe/jump) for a new gameplay experience like no other.
>
> Matchmaking / Ranking: Halo 4 needs a good consistent skill based ranking system that works better than Halo 3.
>
> Weapons: Halo 4 needs to follow in Reach’s footsteps to have a great sandbox where every weapon is useful in its own regard.
>
> Grenades: Halo 4 needs grenades that are more powerful than Halo 3 but less so than Reach.
>
> Melee: Halo 4 needs to use a melee system like Halo 3, but have it feel fluid like Halo Reach.
>
> Conclusion: If Halo 4 combines the best from both of these games with some new Halo-esque stuff, it is going to be the best Halo game by far.

The only thing I would have to disagree with you on is movement speed. Movement speed was considerably slower in Reach than past Halo games. Halo 4’s movement speed feels faster than Reach and about as fast as Halo 3’s.

10

> why would they make a combo of the worst 2 games in the series instead of the best 2?

The ‘worst’ 2 games:
By using each game’s strength to round out the weaknesses of the other, you can end up with a great game. This is what 343 is trying to do. Whether or not they succeed can only be determined in time.

The ‘best’ 2 games:
I am going to assume you are referring to CE and H2. How would you combine those 2 games? What new things would you add? What things would you remove? In an age where popular FPS’s feature things like loadouts and extreme amounts of customization, how do you make a popular game that sells from a barebones Halo game like CE?

11

> Alright you got me.
>
> “Halo Reach matches more consistent than Halo 3.”
> “Halo Reach had a balanced Sandbox.”
> “Halo Reach’s melee system was better than Halo 3’s”
>
> That was a good one OP. I haven’t laughed that hard in a while

12

> The only thing I would have to disagree with you on is movement speed. Movement speed was considerably slower in Reach than past Halo games. Halo 4’s movement speed feels faster than Reach and about as fast as Halo 3’s.

If you refer to the OP, you will notice that I said I use sprint in Reach which makes Halo 3 seem slower to me. I do agree with you that Halo 3 has faster default movement speed than Reach.

13

> The game-choosing mechanics in Reach are terrible. Letting the players vote leads to the same gametype over and over and over. The most blatant example is playing BTB and only getting BTB Slayer / BTB Heavies. The weight of slayer variants is far too high as well. This leads to less variety, and playing less than what is available in the game. Return to Halo 2 system of play what you get, or the H3 veto system.

Do you think a voting system like Reach’s would work if the other votes were hidden? (Think arena voting with 3 options and a none of the above)

14

> > The game-choosing mechanics in Reach are terrible. Letting the players vote leads to the same gametype over and over and over. The most blatant example is playing BTB and only getting BTB Slayer / BTB Heavies. The weight of slayer variants is far too high as well. This leads to less variety, and playing less than what is available in the game. Return to Halo 2 system of play what you get, or the H3 veto system.
>
> Do you think a voting system like Reach’s would work if the other votes were hidden? (Think arena voting with 3 options and a none of the above)

no either way people would still always vote for their same favorite thing over and over again. Veto MUST return.