What Ruined Reach, and What Halo 4 Should Avoid

Before deeply elaborating on my opinion of what made Halo: Reach worse than the original trilogy, I need you readers (and hopefully 343) to understand why I wright this thread, and the reason is to stop 343 making the same mistakes that Bungie did with its swan song to Halo, which I still love as it is. I will summarize my claim in one sentence: The reason Halo: Reach was worse is that it was much less "Halo: than the originals. And not just story-wize, but also gameplay-wize AND graphics-wize. And while I welcome change in any way 343 may imagine, I do not welcome the change of Halo’s essence and feel, which were lost among the change that Reach brought with it.

Story

Reach’s story was flawed. For one, it didn’t even hit close to its potential. There was no mystery, nearly no epicness that Halo is used to give us. There was no forerunners (except for the last twenty minutes of one level), there was no flood (thankfully, cannonically speaking) . It didn’t feel like Halo. And even what it did well wasn’t good enough. The ending was clearly rushed. We didn’t see Reach’s glassed surface in the end. The end didn’t achieve what the beginning aimed to. And where was that Scarab battle we were all waiting to see?

If there’s something I always admired in Halo games, it was the way they managed to tell a story which was both a war story and a sci-fy epic. Halo Always hit the perfect spot when trying to balance the two story elements. Reach didn’t do so well there. It felt more like Call of Duty: Future Warfare than it did Halo.

But that was not the worst flaw of the Reach Campaign. It was REALLY flawed mostly because it broke the canon in a way that reminded me of Star Wars.

Gameplay

The gameplay was the closest thing to Halo in the game. It had all that was Halo inside it. But then there are the Armor Abilities. These are fun additions to the game and franchise (excluding Armor Lock). But… the element of choice they introduced shattered one of the things Halo’s gameplay and Multiplayer were well known for: balance. This shattered what could have been a fun addition to the game and made it yet again less Halo.

AAs were not the only gameplay fault in the game. Among these there are of course player speed and bloom, both of which helped push Reach away from Halo and therefore make it a worse game than it could have been.

Graphics

The graphics in Halo: Reach where good. They had amazing vistas and sky-boxing, they held many a polygon and were purely good. But they WERE NOT Halo. The character models were rough, the animations were not smooth and the overall style was so much less Halo than even ODST.

Overall…

Overall, it wasn’t one of these specific featured that tore “Halo” away from “Reach”, it was the combination of all of them together that did this.

For Halo 4, please give us change. Please give us the unexpected. But keep the game as “Halo” as possible. Thank you.

Forge and bad Maps ruined Halo Reach…

> Forge and bad Maps ruined Halo Reach…

I agree. The maps were more than bad. Hopefully it will make fun again when H: CEA is released.

you know what dude. i know i will get flag for saying this but lets look at COD, COD 4 was great its had problems but it was still fun
World at war, kinda game play as COD 4 same problems but overall a good game
MW2 was the same thing as COD 4 in everyway just more stuff into it like guns and perks
black opps was the same a COD 4 just you have a credit system in it

Now lets look at the halo games for a second (and this is the part where everyone will hate me but get over it)
Halo CE was wounderful still love it to this day
Halo 2 was more of xbox live game that tryed to work on the multyplayer side of the halo world
Halo 3 was the same game as halo 2 but with more stuff in it

Halo reach had a different gameplay which made it more orginal then Halo 3, had a much better graphis system(my view) then Halo 3, had the better ranking system out of the 3 game that where online, you can do more in reach then you could do in Halo 3 and 2, etc, etc, etc, etc so do you get my point on this? just because you wanted another reskin of halo dont make it a good game.

and halo CEA is just halo CE the same game so no it will not count as a 343i game sorry.

and you got your views i do respect that but you also got to deal with mine.

spelling lol

I pretty much agree with the OP, except that the maps are also sort of what ruined MM.

For me it was the story and the maps.

Reach had sso much potential. Maybe the TU and CE: Anniversary will help with the multiplayer.

> Before deeply elaborating on my opinion of what made Halo: Reach worse than the original trilogy, I need you readers (and hopefully 343) to understand why I wright this thread, and the reason is to stop 343 making the same mistakes that Bungie did with its swan song to Halo, which I still love as it is. I will summarize my claim in one sentence: The reason Halo: Reach was worse is that it was much less "Halo: than the originals. And not just story-wize, but also gameplay-wize AND graphics-wize. And while I welcome change in any way 343 may imagine, I do not welcome the change of Halo’s essence and feel, which were lost among the change that Reach brought with it.
>
> Story
>
> Reach’s story was flawed. For one, it didn’t even hit close to its potential. There was no mystery, nearly no epicness that Halo is used to give us. There was no forerunners (except for the last twenty minutes of one level), there was no flood (thankfully, cannonically speaking) . It didn’t feel like Halo. And even what it did well wasn’t good enough. The ending was clearly rushed. We didn’t see Reach’s glassed surface in the end. The end didn’t achieve what the beginning aimed to. And where was that Scarab battle we were all waiting to see?
>
> If there’s something I always admired in Halo games, it was the way they managed to tell a story which was both a war story and a sci-fy epic. Halo Always hit the perfect spot when trying to balance the two story elements. Reach didn’t do so well there. It felt more like Call of Duty: Future Warfare than it did Halo.
>
> But that was not the worst flaw of the Reach Campaign. It was REALLY flawed mostly because it broke the canon in a way that reminded me of Star Wars.
>
> Gameplay
>
> The gameplay was the closest thing to Halo in the game. It had all that was Halo inside it. But then there are the Armor Abilities. These are fun additions to the game and franchise (excluding Armor Lock). But… the element of choice they introduced shattered one of the things Halo’s gameplay and Multiplayer were well known for: balance. This shattered what could have been a fun addition to the game and made it yet again less Halo.
>
>
> AAs were not the only gameplay fault in the game. Among these there are of course player speed and bloom, both of which helped push Reach away from Halo and therefore make it a worse game than it could have been.
>
> Graphics
>
> The graphics in Halo: Reach where good. They had amazing vistas and sky-boxing, they held many a polygon and were purely good. But they WERE NOT Halo. The character models were rough, the animations were not smooth and the overall style was so much less Halo than even ODST.
>
> Overall…
>
> Overall, it wasn’t one of these specific featured that tore “Halo” away from “Reach”, it was the combination of all of them together that did this.
>
> For Halo 4, please give us change. Please give us the unexpected. But keep the game as “Halo” as possible. Thank you.

Dude it want flawed bungie didnt want a mystery.“From the begining you knew the end”. Does that mean anything to you.

> For me it was the story and the maps.
>
> Reach had sso much potential. Maybe the TU and CE: Anniversary will help with the multiplayer.

umm with out the bloom and AA halo reach would be halo CE…

I’ll be perfectly honest, I actually feel like Reach is the closest thing to the original Halo yet. Visually, the game is absolutely gorgeous, and I still enjoy just looking at the background of the title-screen. I’ll admit, story-wise it didn’t offer the depth of the Arbiter, but it still surpassed the Master Chief’s own exploits; the real difference is that Halo 2 and 3 had those “big moments”, which Reach didn’t really include.

I can certainly understand wanting that grand sense of scale included, but I wouldn’t go bashing Reach, either. As far as the Armor Abilities go, I’ll admit they didn’t really live up to their potential, but they’re definitely a worthy cause. They just need more tweaking and balancing, and maybe a bit more variety.

Reach definitely has some aspects that aren’t quite as great as the original Halo trilogy, I’ll give you that. For example, I still prefer Halo 3’s Multiplayer maps, and even Halo 1’s maps were fantastic for smaller, 2v2 matches (which I desperately hope Halo 4 will support). Likewise, Reach seemed decidedly “darker” and “grittier”, whereas I sort of preferred Halo 3 slightly more lighthearted affair. Still, Reach seemed a lot more heartfelt, which hearkens back to Halo 1 a bit.

Overall, I personally think people are a bit quick to hate on Reach. Halo 3 was definitely my favorite online experience… but change can be good, too. I just hope, with Halo 4, they keep some of the fan-favorites from the original Trilogy, and perhaps one or two from Reach. Namely, I want Blood Gulch, Beaver Creek, Zanzibar/Last Resort, and The Pit.

What Halo 4 needs is just more “epic” moments, such as a Scarab battle or anything similar to that nature. It needs a fair balance of them.

What it also needs is more fun easter eggs. The scarab gun for example is a fun easter egg.

We need Halo 4 to be more of a fun and serious game and not just a serious game.

> > For me it was the story and the maps.
> >
> > Reach had sso much potential. Maybe the TU and CE: Anniversary will help with the multiplayer.
>
> umm with out the bloom and AA halo reach would be halo CE…

What would be wrong with that?

As I said, I WELCOME change, as long as it doesn’t ruin the masterpiece that Halo is. I would have loved Armor Abilities if they hadn’t made the game less balanced (they are fun, really). I am not shallow enough to want a replica of the same game, again and again. I just don’t want a worse game, that could have been better if it was more like the one before (not exactly like, but MORE like). You get me?

> > Before deeply elaborating on my opinion of what made Halo: Reach worse than the original trilogy, I need you readers (and hopefully 343) to understand why I wright this thread, and the reason is to stop 343 making the same mistakes that Bungie did with its swan song to Halo, which I still love as it is. I will summarize my claim in one sentence: The reason Halo: Reach was worse is that it was much less "Halo: than the originals. And not just story-wize, but also gameplay-wize AND graphics-wize. And while I welcome change in any way 343 may imagine, I do not welcome the change of Halo’s essence and feel, which were lost among the change that Reach brought with it.
> >
> > Story
> >
> > Reach’s story was flawed. For one, it didn’t even hit close to its potential. There was no mystery, nearly no epicness that Halo is used to give us. There was no forerunners (except for the last twenty minutes of one level), there was no flood (thankfully, cannonically speaking) . It didn’t feel like Halo. And even what it did well wasn’t good enough. The ending was clearly rushed. We didn’t see Reach’s glassed surface in the end. The end didn’t achieve what the beginning aimed to. And where was that Scarab battle we were all waiting to see?
> >
> > If there’s something I always admired in Halo games, it was the way they managed to tell a story which was both a war story and a sci-fy epic. Halo Always hit the perfect spot when trying to balance the two story elements. Reach didn’t do so well there. It felt more like Call of Duty: Future Warfare than it did Halo.
> >
> > But that was not the worst flaw of the Reach Campaign. It was REALLY flawed mostly because it broke the canon in a way that reminded me of Star Wars.
> >
> > Gameplay
> >
> > The gameplay was the closest thing to Halo in the game. It had all that was Halo inside it. But then there are the Armor Abilities. These are fun additions to the game and franchise (excluding Armor Lock). But… the element of choice they introduced shattered one of the things Halo’s gameplay and Multiplayer were well known for: balance. This shattered what could have been a fun addition to the game and made it yet again less Halo.
> >
> >
> > AAs were not the only gameplay fault in the game. Among these there are of course player speed and bloom, both of which helped push Reach away from Halo and therefore make it a worse game than it could have been.
> >
> > Graphics
> >
> > The graphics in Halo: Reach where good. They had amazing vistas and sky-boxing, they held many a polygon and were purely good. But they WERE NOT Halo. The character models were rough, the animations were not smooth and the overall style was so much less Halo than even ODST.
> >
> > Overall…
> >
> > Overall, it wasn’t one of these specific featured that tore “Halo” away from “Reach”, it was the combination of all of them together that did this.
> >
> > For Halo 4, please give us change. Please give us the unexpected. But keep the game as “Halo” as possible. Thank you.
>
> Dude it want flawed bungie didnt want a mystery.“From the begining you knew the end”. Does that mean anything to you.

Please… I was stating things that made Halo what it is (and differed it from other games), even one of the story details I have said that are more Halo might have changed my mind if they appeared in Reach. I didn’t expect mystery, but I wanted it.

> As I said, I WELCOME change, as long as it doesn’t ruin the masterpiece that Halo is. I would have loved Armor Abilities if they hadn’t made the game less balanced (they are fun, really). I am not shallow enough to want a replica of the same game, again and again. I just don’t want a worse game, that could have been better if it was more like the one before (not exactly like, but MORE like). You get me?

No, I agree. I just think they made the game revolve around AAs too much. Plus, they don’t seem to be more annoying than fun when it comes to multiplayer. That is my opinion.

> I’ll be perfectly honest, I actually feel like Reach is the closest thing to the original Halo yet. Visually, the game is absolutely gorgeous, and I still enjoy just looking at the background of the title-screen. I’ll admit, story-wise it didn’t offer the depth of the Arbiter, but it still surpassed the Master Chief’s own exploits; the real difference is that Halo 2 and 3 had those “big moments”, which Reach didn’t really include.
>
> I can certainly understand wanting that grand sense of scale included, but I wouldn’t go bashing Reach, either. As far as the Armor Abilities go, I’ll admit they didn’t really live up to their potential, but they’re definitely a worthy cause. They just need more tweaking and balancing, and maybe a bit more variety.
>
> Reach definitely has some aspects that aren’t quite as great as the original Halo trilogy, I’ll give you that. For example, I still prefer Halo 3’s Multiplayer maps, and even Halo 1’s maps were fantastic for smaller, 2v2 matches (which I desperately hope Halo 4 will support). Likewise, Reach seemed decidedly “darker” and “grittier”, whereas I sort of preferred Halo 3 slightly more lighthearted affair. Still, Reach seemed a lot more heartfelt, which hearkens back to Halo 1 a bit.
>
> Overall, I personally think people are a bit quick to hate on Reach. Halo 3 was definitely my favorite online experience… but change can be good, too. I just hope, with Halo 4, they keep some of the fan-favorites from the original Trilogy, and perhaps one or two from Reach. Namely, I want Blood Gulch, Beaver Creek, Zanzibar/Last Resort, and The Pit.

Please don’t get me wrong. I love Reach a lot. But I love it less than say, Halo 3 or Halo 2. Everything besides what I stated, was done perfectly. Reach even had my second or third favorite mission in all of Halo (yes, Long Night of Solace).

> > > Before deeply elaborating on my opinion of what made Halo: Reach worse than the original trilogy, I need you readers (and hopefully 343) to understand why I wright this thread, and the reason is to stop 343 making the same mistakes that Bungie did with its swan song to Halo, which I still love as it is. I will summarize my claim in one sentence: The reason Halo: Reach was worse is that it was much less "Halo: than the originals. And not just story-wize, but also gameplay-wize AND graphics-wize. And while I welcome change in any way 343 may imagine, I do not welcome the change of Halo’s essence and feel, which were lost among the change that Reach brought with it.
> > >
> > > Story
> > >
> > > Reach’s story was flawed. For one, it didn’t even hit close to its potential. There was no mystery, nearly no epicness that Halo is used to give us. There was no forerunners (except for the last twenty minutes of one level), there was no flood (thankfully, cannonically speaking) . It didn’t feel like Halo. And even what it did well wasn’t good enough. The ending was clearly rushed. We didn’t see Reach’s glassed surface in the end. The end didn’t achieve what the beginning aimed to. And where was that Scarab battle we were all waiting to see?
> > >
> > > If there’s something I always admired in Halo games, it was the way they managed to tell a story which was both a war story and a sci-fy epic. Halo Always hit the perfect spot when trying to balance the two story elements. Reach didn’t do so well there. It felt more like Call of Duty: Future Warfare than it did Halo.
> > >
> > > But that was not the worst flaw of the Reach Campaign. It was REALLY flawed mostly because it broke the canon in a way that reminded me of Star Wars.
> > >
> > > Gameplay
> > >
> > > The gameplay was the closest thing to Halo in the game. It had all that was Halo inside it. But then there are the Armor Abilities. These are fun additions to the game and franchise (excluding Armor Lock). But… the element of choice they introduced shattered one of the things Halo’s gameplay and Multiplayer were well known for: balance. This shattered what could have been a fun addition to the game and made it yet again less Halo.
> > >
> > >
> > > AAs were not the only gameplay fault in the game. Among these there are of course player speed and bloom, both of which helped push Reach away from Halo and therefore make it a worse game than it could have been.
> > >
> > > Graphics
> > >
> > > The graphics in Halo: Reach where good. They had amazing vistas and sky-boxing, they held many a polygon and were purely good. But they WERE NOT Halo. The character models were rough, the animations were not smooth and the overall style was so much less Halo than even ODST.
> > >
> > > Overall…
> > >
> > > Overall, it wasn’t one of these specific featured that tore “Halo” away from “Reach”, it was the combination of all of them together that did this.
> > >
> > > For Halo 4, please give us change. Please give us the unexpected. But keep the game as “Halo” as possible. Thank you.
> >
> > Dude it want flawed bungie didnt want a mystery.“From the begining you knew the end”. Does that mean anything to you.
>
> Please… I was stating things that made Halo what it is (and differed it from other games), even one of the story details I have said that are more Halo might have changed my mind if they appeared in Reach. I didn’t expect mystery, but I wanted it.

I respect your opinion. I thought it felt like a mix of odst and halo ce. So ya it did feel like call of duty. But I like it. If they keep the elments for halo 4 and give it that forruner mystery i think it would be the best halo yet.

Bloom is not really a problem. The DMR is. If you use the Needle Rifle, Magnum, AR, or Plasma Repeater, Bloom feels natural, like it SHOULD be there.

In fact, Bloom should be implemented at least aesthetically into every weapon. Being functional on weapons like the Plasma Pistol, Needler, Plasma Rifle, Spiker, Turrets, Focus Rifle (With a damage buff) Maybe even the Shotgun to prevent campy multikills. While only being aesthetic on, say, the BR (Showing spread, resetting before shot.), Rockets, Grenade Launcher, etc.

> As I said, I WELCOME change, as long as it doesn’t ruin the masterpiece that Halo is. I would have loved Armor Abilities if they hadn’t made the game less balanced (they are fun, really). I am not shallow enough to want a replica of the same game, again and again. I just don’t want a worse game, that could have been better if it was more like the one before (not exactly like, but MORE like). You get me?

I can feel you, but I think that’s all just part of the risk of doing something new; there’s no way of telling how the community will react. I think the issue with Armor Abilities isn’t necessarily that they unbalanced the game, but that they weren’t balanced in comparison with each other. Sprint, for example, is kind of a standard feature in today’s Shooter, so we were all happy to see that. Armor Lock, on the other hand, is a really unique ability, but wound up being more powerful than the other AA’s. It’s not that it breaks the game, but it’s just “too good” compared to its alternatives.

As for the big, epic moments… I’m totally with you. Even though I loved Halo 1 because it didn’t feel quite as epic (it actually left me feeling a bit “alone”, kind of like Metroid, which I loved), the series has evolve to a point it really needs that. Especially Reach, given everything that’s going on during it, really could’ve used a big, epic scene to really drive-home the message.

I definitely think there needs to be more weapon-variety and balancing, though. I wouldn’t say any weapon ever felt too powerful, but there were many in Reach that didn’t feel powerful enough. The Shotgun, for instance, felt a bit too much like a sword; insta-kill at close-range, but it couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn from more than 5 feet away. Likewise, the AR felt like a peashooter, while the DMR could topple any foe.

I wouldn’t say those things ruined Reach, but they could definitely be improved upon. I just hope they do something new, though, unlike the Call of Duty series, which seems hellbent on keeping gameplay exactly the same.

Well, how can they break canon if they made the Blaming game? I thought the graphics where great and the story was awesome! But, yes the MP maps are unoriginal and boring…

What is this “Canon” you all speak of?