Today i played a few games of reach with my roommate. He had played halo in the past but like 75% of FPS players out there he played mostly COD. As we played he voiced his complaints and i completely understood them as someone who played epic amounts of CE.
bloom and the # of shots to kill. I would watch his encounters and many in CE he woudl have won, but no this is reach, a game made to frustrate. Bloom jipped him out of a few and the sheer shots to kill allowed enemies to run away or have teammates swoop in and save the day. CE and to a lesser extent H2 were smash hits even with casuals becuase the guns didnt shoot marshmallows. They killed fast and your bullet went were you shot.
Lets face it COD brought many new FPS fans to the table. Clearly fast kill times are the order of the day. Fast kill time are also what made halo, halo back in 2001. so to make this game appeal to the people it used to 2 major things must occur
1a)a 3shot utility weapon akin to the CE magnum must come back
2a)The AR needs to be strong and have a 60 round clip
Vehicles
Often my friend would fire up a ghost and shoot at someone, the sheer time it took to kill between AL and sprinting away was infuriating to him. he would say “WTF!! i shot him so many times and he kills me by just shootign the new ghost with a sniper?!”. Vehicles need to be a force to recon with. H3 actually accomplished this yet reach decided to make vehicles border line useless if not obsurd liek the banshee. Vehicles need to be powerful and thats all of them not just the banshee. H3 was a good example of vehicles doen right
Conclusion
Halo is being dominated by COD and COD has made many people fans of the FPS genre. Clearly we all know halo is superior but it has lost its ease of accessability it once had in CE. Today with what we had in reach its just frustrating and if Halo 4 is to be remembered like CE of H2 it needs to play fast. a 3sk magnum or rifle doesnt mean all the other wepaons need to blow but rather they shoudl be built around such a weapon. People liek fast paced games and thats a fact shown by CE/H2 and COD.
Halo needs to get with the times and go back to what it did right in the first place. Fast kill times and being beginner freindly
Halo and COD are two complete separate entities that really don’t ride off the other.
COD vs Battlefield
COD vs MOH
Those are more accurate. Halo should be pitted against exclusives which it holds the championship belt for.
I don’t compare one to the other mainly b/c they are complete opposites in most areas.
COD only “brings new fans” to the table b/c it’s multiplatform. It’s got Xbox and PS to offer it’s arms to gamers. Halo made it’s mark and split records almost every time it released on one console alone.
The irony is, no matter how many people advocate “what made Halo ‘Halo’” - There’s always another group pointing out something ELSE that defines Halo. Halo is what YOU make of it.
Just enjoy it and let others as well. Otherwise, go make your own game and see how well you’re praised for the endless issues and complaints people will find. And they will.
> Halo and COD are two complete separate entities that really don’t ride off the other.
>
> COD vs Battlefield
>
> COD vs MOH
>
> Those are more accurate. Halo should be pitted against exclusives which it holds the championship belt for.
>
>
> I don’t compare one to the other mainly b/c they are complete opposites in most areas.
>
> COD only “brings new fans” to the table b/c it’s multiplatform. It’s got Xbox and PS to offer it’s arms to gamers. Halo made it’s mark and split records almost every time it released on one console alone.
>
> The irony is, no matter how many people advocate “what made Halo ‘Halo’” - There’s always another group pointing out something ELSE that defines Halo. Halo is what YOU make of it.
>
> Just enjoy it and let others as well. Otherwise, go make your own game and see how well you’re praised for the endless issues and complaints people will find. And they will.
way to address my points and say whether you agree with them or not and why.
No they need to be compared because CODs success is not a fluke. Halo needs to learn.
Halo 1 and 2 had the most realistic graphics of their day
today COD has vastly superior hold on realism in terms of simple things like environment
CE and H2 has fast kill times AND DOMINATED THEIR DAY H3 and and reach have much slower kill times and got dookied on by COD
today COD has very fast kill times and dominates the FPS scene on XBOX
THOSE THAT DONT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. REACH WAS A FLOP AND COD IS KING FOR A REASON. DONT BE BLIND.
> THOSE THAT DONT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. REACH WAS A FLOP AND COD IS KING FOR A REASON. DONT BE BLIND.
FACEPALM
OK, I agreed with your points about bloom and fast kill times. But I disagree with ^this^ entirely. Reach was a flop because it catered to casuals, the SAME casuals who are part of the CoD fanbase. If they tried to make Halo 4 like CoD they may as well name it Reach 2 and have a trollface.jpg on the front cover.
> > THOSE THAT DONT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. REACH WAS A FLOP AND COD IS KING FOR A REASON. DONT BE BLIND.
>
> FACEPALM
>
> OK, I agreed with your points about bloom and fast kill times. But I disagree with ^this^ entirely. Reach was a flop because it catered to casuals, the SAME casuals who are part of the CoD fanbase. If they tried to make Halo 4 like CoD they may as well name it Reach 2 and have a trollface.jpg on the front cover.
> way to address my points and say whether you agree with them or not and why.
>
> No they need to be compared because CODs success is not a fluke. Halo needs to learn.
>
> 1)
> Halo 1 and 2 had the most realistic graphics of their day
>
> today COD has vastly superior hold on realism in terms of simple things like environment
>
> 2) CE and H2 has fast kill times AND DOMINATED THEIR DAY H3 and and reach have much slower kill times and got dookied on by COD
>
> today COD has very fast kill times and dominates the FPS scene on XBOX
>
>
>
>
>
>
> THOSE THAT DONT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. REACH WAS A FLOP AND COD IS KING FOR A REASON. DONT BE BLIND.
Very preachy. Especially since you overlook that Reach was well received than you assume it was. I also never said COD was a fluke. I know it’s successful but it’s also very bland in terms of versatility and variety. Reach has a superior variety of playlists and options in order to enjoy matchmade or private gametypes.
I doubt a flop would be considered a success since that’s exactly what it was. Hardcore fans were just disappointed it wasn’t a game from 5 or more years ago.
Things change. It’s called Evolution.
And are you serious about the graphics??? Color scheme is a whole different story (Reach was meant to be bland due to it’s grim story) but have you played CEA? Have you compared the graphics from then to today? My buddy actually didn’t believe he played the same game over 10 years ago. If flat, under-detailed blocks of blotches are “the most realistic graphics of it’s day” then I don’t even want to know what you consider todays graphics.
> > THOSE THAT DONT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. REACH WAS A FLOP AND COD IS KING FOR A REASON. DONT BE BLIND.
>
> FACEPALM
>
> OK, I agreed with your points about bloom and fast kill times. But I disagree with ^this^ entirely. Reach was a flop because it catered to casuals, the SAME casuals who are part of the CoD fanbase. If they tried to make Halo 4 like CoD they may as well name it Reach 2 and have a trollface.jpg on the front cover.
I disagree with this, Reach catered to the bad halo player, not the COD fan. IF you were under 40 in H3 reach is a dream come true. no more strafe, plenty of AL to be saved by teammates, plenty of jetpack to eliminate any map control, grenades couldnt be easier to place.
Reach clearly doesnt cater to COD fans since
kill times are agonizingly long with bloom, 5sk, and AAs
2)graphics are horrible and kiddy like. have you ever seen a forest that looks like timberland? Spartans are super serious deathmachines, yet they spout confetti when they die?
H4 needs to be like cod in these ways
the CE mag and AR along with buffed up other weapons for fast kill times and gameplay
realistic to the Halo universe graphics. No dumb stuff like hearts flying over your head and environment that look real which COD does very well.
> > > THOSE THAT DONT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. REACH WAS A FLOP AND COD IS KING FOR A REASON. DONT BE BLIND.
> >
> > FACEPALM
> >
> > OK, I agreed with your points about bloom and fast kill times. But I disagree with ^this^ entirely. Reach was a flop because it catered to casuals, the SAME casuals who are part of the CoD fanbase. If they tried to make Halo 4 like CoD they may as well name it Reach 2 and have a trollface.jpg on the front cover.
>
> I disagree with this, Reach catered to the bad halo player, not the COD fan.
> > way to address my points and say whether you agree with them or not and why.
> >
> > No they need to be compared because CODs success is not a fluke. Halo needs to learn.
> >
> > 1)
> > Halo 1 and 2 had the most realistic graphics of their day
> >
> > today COD has vastly superior hold on realism in terms of simple things like environment
> >
> > 2) CE and H2 has fast kill times AND DOMINATED THEIR DAY H3 and and reach have much slower kill times and got dookied on by COD
> >
> > today COD has very fast kill times and dominates the FPS scene on XBOX
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > THOSE THAT DONT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. REACH WAS A FLOP AND COD IS KING FOR A REASON. DONT BE BLIND.
>
> Very preachy. Especially since you overlook that Reach was well received than you assume it was. I also never said COD was a fluke. I know it’s successful but it’s also very bland in terms of versatility and variety. Reach has a superior variety of playlists and options in order to enjoy matchmade or private gametypes.
>
> I doubt a flop would be considered a success since that’s exactly what it was. Hardcore fans were just disappointed it wasn’t a game from 5 or more years ago.
>
> Things change. It’s called Evolution.
>
>
>
> And are you serious about the graphics??? Color scheme is a whole different story (Reach was meant to be bland due to it’s grim story) but have you played CEA? Have you compared the graphics from then to today? My buddy actually didn’t believe he played the same game over 10 years ago. If flat, under-detailed blocks of blotches are “the most realistic graphics of it’s day” then I don’t even want to know what you consider todays graphics.
buddy reach was not a success in terms of a halo game if it were any other game then yeh id say it was but compared to CE-H3 reach was a flop. and for these reasons
bottomed out to #11 on XBL in dec, now its #7, H2 and H3 were always number one until MW2, H3 beat all the gears all the CODs prior to MW2 and all the BFs
CE-H3 were all over the media TV etc, reach is literally nowhere to be found
and i could go even further
Graphics
reach has horrible environemntal graphics compared to COD, it looks kiddy, there are freaking butterflys on hemm for gods sake. I dont know where you are getting this CEA comparison from. my point was that CE and H2 were the leaders in console games in terms of graphics in their time. Reach vs COD does a poor job at doing environments. still looks like a kiddie game.
> buddy reach was not a success in terms of a halo game if it were any other game then yeh id say it was but compared to CE-H3 reach was a flop. and for these reasons
>
> 1) bottomed out to #11 on XBL in dec, now its #7, H2 and H3 were always number one until MW2, H3 beat all the gears all the CODs prior to MW2 and all the BFs
>
> 2) CE-H3 were all over the media TV etc, reach is literally nowhere to be found
>
> and i could go even further
>
> Graphics
> reach has horrible environemntal graphics compared to COD, it looks kiddy, there are freaking butterflys on hemm for gods sake. I dont know where you are getting this CEA comparison from. my point was that CE and H2 were the leaders in console games in terms of graphics in their time. Reach vs COD does a poor job at doing environments. still looks like a kiddie game.
Again, you’re focusing WAY too much comparison on COD. You act like COD actually will wipe Halo off the map.
If that happens, I’ll eat my own underwear.
I don’t know where you see the “kiddie” element but that’s why opinions are like cornholes. Everyone’s got one and it usually stinks.
To each their own. You keep worrying about the fictional “fall” of Halo. I’ll keep playing the games that will continually be coming out.
I play the game. Not worry about it’s future. That’s up to the developers.
> > > > THOSE THAT DONT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. REACH WAS A FLOP AND COD IS KING FOR A REASON. DONT BE BLIND.
> > >
> > > FACEPALM
> > >
> > > OK, I agreed with your points about bloom and fast kill times. But I disagree with ^this^ entirely. Reach was a flop because it catered to casuals, the SAME casuals who are part of the CoD fanbase. If they tried to make Halo 4 like CoD they may as well name it Reach 2 and have a trollface.jpg on the front cover.
> >
> > I disagree with this, Reach catered to the bad halo player, not the COD fan.
>
> There’s a difference?
COD fans like
-realistic environemnts
-fast kill times
-many also played CE-H3 and enjoyed the simplicity and power of weapons
bad halo players
-long kill times for plenty of 2nd chances
dont care about realism they will cry “its sci fi! what aleins arent real!!!” without realizing that halo should be realistic to its universe and in its universe confettie doesnt pop out of spartans heads and trees still look liek trees
-typically h3-reach and claim they played the past games which means they bought the platinum hits versions and played through the campaign while sayign to themselves WOW this game is so backward.
> > buddy reach was not a success in terms of a halo game if it were any other game then yeh id say it was but compared to CE-H3 reach was a flop. and for these reasons
> >
> > 1) bottomed out to #11 on XBL in dec, now its #7, H2 and H3 were always number one until MW2, H3 beat all the gears all the CODs prior to MW2 and all the BFs
> >
> > 2) CE-H3 were all over the media TV etc, reach is literally nowhere to be found
> >
> > and i could go even further
> >
> > Graphics
> > reach has horrible environemntal graphics compared to COD, it looks kiddy, there are freaking butterflys on hemm for gods sake. I dont know where you are getting this CEA comparison from. my point was that CE and H2 were the leaders in console games in terms of graphics in their time. Reach vs COD does a poor job at doing environments. still looks like a kiddie game.
>
> Again, you’re focusing WAY too much comparison on COD. You act like COD actually will wipe Halo off the map.
>
> If that happens, I’ll eat my own underwear.
>
>
> I don’t know where you see the “kiddie” element but that’s why opinions are like cornholes. Everyone’s got one and it usually stinks.
>
> To each their own. You keep worrying about the fictional “fall” of Halo. I’ll keep playing the games that will continually be coming out.
>
> I play the game. Not worry about it’s future. That’s up to the developers.
Not gunna lie, i love halo. And if you would have told me when H3 dropped that a new halo would become number 11 in its first year i would never have believed you.
halo is becoming a niche game, and is no longer the king of FPS. It needs to go back to what made it a success while making measured innovations.
AAs where great but they should have started at first a few playlists with bloom/ no bleed etc, and then gone from there. You dont take a winnign formula a throw it out the window.
> buddy reach was not a success in terms of a halo game if it were any other game then yeh id say it was but compared to CE-H3 reach was a flop. and for these reasons
>
> 1) bottomed out to #11 on XBL in dec, now its #7, H2 and H3 were always number one until MW2, H3 beat all the gears all the CODs prior to MW2 and all the BFs
>
> 2) CE-H3 were all over the media TV etc, reach is literally nowhere to be found
>
> and i could go even further
>
> Graphics
> reach has horrible environemntal graphics compared to COD, it looks kiddy, there are freaking butterflys on hemm for gods sake. I dont know where you are getting this CEA comparison from. my point was that CE and H2 were the leaders in console games in terms of graphics in their time. Reach vs COD does a poor job at doing environments. still looks like a kiddie game.
Reach never hit #11 on the XBL charts. In 2011, it was the 4th most played game over all (after MW2, MW3, and Black Ops). Halo 2 was number 1 because there were only about 2 other games with a decent online multiplayer. Halo 3 was constantly switching between the #1 and #2 spot with COD and other games during major releases. Only in mid-late 2009 did it consistently hold the #1 spot.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: there is a lot more competition for Reach than any past Halo game. Go look up “[year] in video games” on wikipedia and look at how the number of games released has been skyrocketing in recent years.
What the hell are you talking about? I’ll grant that Halo 1 and 2 were discussed a lot, but they were revolutionary. No Halo will ever receive that kind of media attention again. Hell, it’s unlikely any game will unless some new innovation is made. Halo 3 was, to my experience, rarely seen or discussed on TV after release, just like Reach.
Graphics:
You must be blind to think Reach’s graphics are worse than COD’s, or bad overall. COD’s graphics haven’t gotten any better since MW2, and even then were mediocre at best. No Halo game has ever had top-of-the-line graphics, but each still looked amazing at the time of release.
> Not gunna lie, i love halo. And if you would have told me when H3 dropped that a new halo would become number 11 in its first year i would never have believed you.
>
> halo is becoming a niche game, and is no longer the king of FPS. It needs to go back to what made it a success while making measured innovations.
>
> AAs where great but they should have started at first a few playlists with bloom/ no bleed etc, and then gone from there. You dont take a winnign formula a throw it out the window.
>
> Coke did that once and it didnt work out
If you would’ve told me Halo 3 or Reach dropped to #99 - I wouldn’t care. What matters to ME is if “I” enjoy it. Not a bunch of other booger eaters. If they want to dislike it, they’re free to.
Does it HAVE to be the King? Can’t it just be good and enjoyable to whoever deems it so?
Is that asking too much?
And seriously? The Coca Cola comparison now?? The top leading Cola brand on the planet?
The Cola Wars are constantly dipping in the others favor but in reality, Coke is still the top biller with it’s much more enjoyable set of variety.
Pepsi and co-op brands -
it even says that Pepsi is actually more geared towards food and snacks rather than it’s beverage department which is only decently maintained by Pepsi itself and Mountain Dew.
Wheras Coca Cola has twice as many subsidiaries not including it’s preference with Alcoholic beverages (ever heard of a Jack and Pepsi? Nope!):
This is also international but the list speaks for itself with support for Coke vs Pepsi
You need new resources kid. As Toa just completely displayed.
> > > THOSE THAT DONT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. REACH WAS A FLOP AND COD IS KING FOR A REASON. DONT BE BLIND.
> >
> > FACEPALM
> >
> > OK, I agreed with your points about bloom and fast kill times. But I disagree with ^this^ entirely. Reach was a flop because it catered to casuals, the SAME casuals who are part of the CoD fanbase. If they tried to make Halo 4 like CoD they may as well name it Reach 2 and have a trollface.jpg on the front cover.
>
> I disagree with this, Reach catered to the bad halo player, not the COD fan. IF you were under 40 in H3 reach is a dream come true. no more strafe, plenty of AL to be saved by teammates, plenty of jetpack to eliminate any map control, grenades couldnt be easier to place.
>
> Reach clearly doesnt cater to COD fans since
> 1) kill times are agonizingly long with bloom, 5sk, and AAs
> 2)graphics are horrible and kiddy like. have you ever seen a forest that looks like timberland? Spartans are super serious deathmachines, yet they spout confetti when they die?
>
>
> H4 needs to be like cod in these ways
> 1) the CE mag and AR along with buffed up other weapons for fast kill times and gameplay
> 2) realistic to the Halo universe graphics. No dumb stuff like hearts flying over your head and environment that look real which COD does very well.
You’re seriously complaining about the Armor Effects? If you have paid attention, the last ten years, you would know Bungie liked to mess around, and add novelties. And it’s a video game about a hoola hoop with plants, trees, and it’s own atmosphere. Does that really have to look real? And even though Halo: Reach is the worst out of the series, it still out does CoD.
[/quote]
You’re seriously complaining about the Armor Effects? If you have paid attention, the last ten years, you would know Bungie liked to mess around, and add novelties. And it’s a video game about a hoola hoop with plants, trees, and it’s own atmosphere. Does that really have to look real? And even though Halo: Reach is the worst out of the series, it still out does CoD.
[/quote]
Halo Reach was not the worst niether was the other games.
And plus IT IS JUST A BRANCH OFF FROM THE FRANCHISE! Halo reach revolutionized the game.
