SO much undeserved hate...

Games Other Halo
1

I really don’t get it. I have played every single Halo game, and Reach is one of my favorites. I honestly just do not understand the majority of the complaints with this game.

But the complaint that stands out to me too much: That it “does not feel/play like Halo”. I mean, to me it just makes no sense. The minute I start the game, all I see is that same excellent Halo feeling that I get when I put in any of the other games as well.

As for gameplay, people say that AAs aren’t Halo, or that bloom kills the game. Fine, if you don’t like those things, I can get behind that. I personally like AAs, and I’m indifferent towards bloom, but if you don’t like them, that’s your opinion, and I have no right to tell you otherwise. But what I don’t get is when people say that Reach is too different to be a natural continuation from Halo 3 (gameplay wise, not canon wise). I find it to be the exact opposite. The jump between 3 and Reach was the same as the jump between Halo 2 and 3, and the jump between CE and 2. In fact, if anything, I find that Reach is the closest one to its origins in CE.

So yeah, in short, I really don’t get Reach’s hate, at all. I find that it is the best all around Halo game (when considering story, multiplayer, firefight, and all of the other excellent features. Although when just considering campaign, ODST is my favorite). Reach had everything, and it was an excellent way for Bungie to go out with a bang. I loved every minute of it, and still do. I’m not trying to make people like it, I just don’t understand how people don’t if they’re Halo fans.

I’m just going to prepare for the saem reaction to Halo 4. After all, every time a new Halo game comes out, the community says that its the worst, and that the previous one was better. Happened to 2, 3, and Reach. Why should 4 be any different?

2

That’s a lot of words for such a basic point.

People like to play video games for the competition. Things like the AAs and bloom increase the randomness of the gameplay and reduce competitiveness.

3

> That’s a lot of words for such a basic point.
>
> People like to play video games for the competition. Things like the AAs and bloom increase the randomness of the gameplay and reduce competitiveness.

No. People play videogames for fun.

4

> > That’s a lot of words for such a basic point.
> >
> > People like to play video games for the competition. Things like the AAs and bloom increase the randomness of the gameplay and reduce competitiveness.
>
> No. People play videogames for fun.

You’re actually both wrong.

SOME people play for fun.
SOME people play for competition.
SOME people play to be idiots.

5

> > That’s a lot of words for such a basic point.
> >
> > People like to play video games for the competition. Things like the AAs and bloom increase the randomness of the gameplay and reduce competitiveness.
>
> No. People play videogames for fun.

Umm… the competition is fun. It really doesn’t make sense to me why anyone else would play Matchmaking (except to be an idiot, like that other guy pointed out). What is fun in Halo other than killing someone before they kill you? The pretty colors, the flashing lights? If so, maybe Halo is not for you.

6

> That’s a lot of words for such a basic point.
>
> People like to play video games for the competition. Things like the AAs and bloom increase the randomness of the gameplay and reduce competitiveness.

Yeah, I tend to talk a lot :stuck_out_tongue:

But anyways, I get that people like competition (so do I) but randomness has always had its part in Halo as well. Halo for me has always been more fun than hardcore competitive, anyways. One reason I started playing Halo’s multiplayer because people took COD’s way too seriously. Halo’s offered me the opportunity to just relax and have some fun (It also helps that I’m a huge fan of the campaigns, as well :smiley: ).

And another point I wanted t make. People say that AAs are unfair and ruin Halo’s even playing field. But I 100% disagree with that. After all, in most gametypes everyone is offered the same loadouts to choose from. You have the exact same opportunities as everyone else. it all just goes down to how well you are with the particular AA.

7

> > That’s a lot of words for such a basic point.
> >
> > People like to play video games for the competition. Things like the AAs and bloom increase the randomness of the gameplay and reduce competitiveness.
>
> No. People play videogames for fun.

Playing competitively is fun.

Stomping as randoms that have no idea what to do is boring.

8

I agree with what the OP has said

9

> > That’s a lot of words for such a basic point.
> >
> > People like to play video games for the competition. Things like the AAs and bloom increase the randomness of the gameplay and reduce competitiveness.
>
> Yeah, I tend to talk a lot :stuck_out_tongue:
>
> But anyways, I get that people like competition (so do I) but randomness has always had its part in Halo as well. Halo for me has always been more fun than hardcore competitive, anyways. One reason I started playing Halo’s multiplayer because people took COD’s way too seriously. Halo’s offered me the opportunity to just relax and have some fun (It also helps that I’m a huge fan of the campaigns, as well :smiley: ).
>
> And another point I wanted t make. People say that AAs are unfair and ruin Halo’s even playing field. But I 100% disagree with that. After all, in most gametypes everyone is offered the same loadouts to choose from. You have the exact same opportunities as everyone else. it all just goes down to how well you are with the particular AA.

Halo used to be “everyone starts on equal footing and you fight for power ups and power weapons”.

Reach just gave that entire idea the middle finger.

You want that rocket up there? Ok, instead of fight to get it, I’ll just jetpack and get it before you do.

You killed me and won that rockets? Nope, AL.

You have better aim than me? I’ll just spam you to death and win.

You won map control? Ok, I’ll just jetpack and destroy it.

10

I don’t understand it myself!
I got BF3 for Christmas and I completed only a single level because I spent my majority of gaming time on reach, so really its doing its work fine on my end, people just can’t take how much it has changed since the rock-em sock-em version they played years ago.

11

I agree with OP,
I agree with MLG,
Now I agree with OP, im to’a stupid to make up a my own mind.

12

> That’s a lot of words for such a basic point.
>
> People like to play video games for the competition. Things like the AAs and bloom increase the randomness of the gameplay and reduce competitiveness.

Speak for yourself. You may play for the competitive aspects as do many others but not all do. And there’s nothing wrong with you liking the competitive side of games, but don’t try to speak for all players, no one elected your our spokesperson.

Look, we all play to win (usually) but what’s most important to each of us is the fun, though we each have different definitions of what is fun and yours happens to be competition. And that’s ok. I can have fun in what ever game mode I choose at any given time weather it be MM, FF, Custom, or Campaign and so can you. Just don;t try to speak for me or anybody else other than yourself.

Oh, and OP I totally agree!

13

Halo, in my opinion, had a good balance of fun and competitive. Reach leaned to far to the fun side, hence the overwhelming population of kiddy gametypes , and the underwhelming presence in competitive playlist. All my friends quit and looking at the numbers many many players left.

14

What a typical Reach defense force thread.

Reach deserves every ounce of criticism even if we are still “beating a dead horse”.

15

> What a typical Reach defense force thread.
>
> Reach deserves every ounce of criticism even if we are still “beating a dead horse”.

Typical? I wouldn’t say that. It is just simply me offering my opinions, and treating them as such. I’m not saying that you have to like the game, or that what I’m saying is fact, just that I don’t understand the hate, and from the looks of it, others don’t as well.

16

> I really don’t get it. I have played every single Halo game, and Reach is one of my favorites. I honestly just do not understand the majority of the complaints with this game.
>
> But the complaint that stands out to me too much: That it “does not feel/play like Halo”. I mean, to me it just makes no sense. The minute I start the game, all I see is that same excellent Halo feeling that I get when I put in any of the other games as well.
>
> As for gameplay, people say that AAs aren’t Halo, or that bloom kills the game. Fine, if you don’t like those things, I can get behind that. I personally like AAs, and I’m indifferent towards bloom, but if you don’t like them, that’s your opinion, and I have no right to tell you otherwise. But what I don’t get is when people say that Reach is too different to be a natural continuation from Halo 3 (gameplay wise, not canon wise). I find it to be the exact opposite. The jump between 3 and Reach was the same as the jump between Halo 2 and 3, and the jump between CE and 2. In fact, if anything, I find that Reach is the closest one to its origins in CE.
>
> So yeah, in short, I really don’t get Reach’s hate, at all. I find that it is the best all around Halo game (when considering story, multiplayer, firefight, and all of the other excellent features. Although when just considering campaign, ODST is my favorite). Reach had everything, and it was an excellent way for Bungie to go out with a bang. I loved every minute of it, and still do. I’m not trying to make people like it, I just don’t understand how people don’t if they’re Halo fans.
>
> I’m just going to prepare for the saem reaction to Halo 4. After all, every time a new Halo game comes out, the community says that its the worst, and that the previous one was better. Happened to 2, 3, and Reach. Why should 4 be any different?

Excellent post, OP. People just don’t seem to grasp that it’s only a video game.

17

I bet you thought you were pretty clever by posting that. In reality, however, it’s just not true.

You are playing a game that pits four people against four others and the objective is to kill the other side enough times to win.

Now, please tell me… where is the fun in that scenario, if not for the competition? I don’t see how it is possible to simultaneously “play to win” but also find the competition not fun. In fact, I find it so impossible that it must be cognitive dissonance on your part.

Firefight, Customs, and Campaign all have different scenarios and objectives, so what may be considered “fun” is wildly different from something so bare-bones and straightforward as Matchmaking Slayer.

18

> I bet you thought you were pretty clever by posting that. In reality, however, it’s just not true.
>
> You are playing a game that pits four people against four others and the objective is to kill the other side enough times to win.
>
> Now, please tell me… where is the fun in that scenario, if not for the competition? I don’t see how it is possible to simultaneously “play to win” but also find the competition not fun. In fact, I find it so impossible that it must be cognitive dissonance on your part.
>
> Firefight, Customs, and Campaign all have different scenarios and objectives, so what may be considered “fun” is wildly different from something so bare-bones and straightforward as Matchmaking Slayer.

Clever? Not really, no. Obviously the fun lies in competition, but competition loses its fun when its taken too seriously. For example, when I’m playing, I try my hardest to, lets say, pick up the rockets to take down the enemy tank. But if I fail and get sniped by a guy on a jetpack on my way there, I’m not going to complain that AAs broke the game, or get mad at the person who killed me. I’m going to suck it up, try harder next time, and just keep having fun.