What's wrong with Reach.

so, I was playing reach today when i got to thinking… whats wrong with reach? although i still play the game, as i did all the halo games, i cant help but wonder why i am not having as much fun as i used to. even ODST, which wasnt ranked very high among the halo games, seemed to be more fun to play than this new game. is it the armor abilities, the new recoil system, or the annoying maps that make this game less fun for the original halo players.

i am a huge halo fan. i have read all the books and played each game almost religiously. does anyone else get the feeling that i have?

I’d have to say the aiming system is the biggest annoyance, that and the fact that if you stick someone with a plasma grenade and they have armor lock it’s not a kill anymore.

Because it’s so radically different from the other Halo games.

I knew something was wrong when I realized that I was actually winning games.

> I’d have to say the aiming system is the biggest annoyance, that and the fact that if you stick someone with a plasma grenade and they have armor lock it’s not a kill anymore.

Yeahh I agree, the aiming system is most DEFINITELY what turned me off the most!

I played 8,334 games of Halo 2.
About 6,000 across 2 accounts in H3.
And Reach i’ll probably be at about 2-3 thousand tops in the same timeframe.
It’s just not that fun because it doesn’t feel like the Halo that 1 2 and 3 did for me.
I’ve been an avid Halo fan since 2001 and Reach just doesn’t have the same replay value in it’s Matchmaking that the other 2 had.

[deleted]

As far as multiplayer, it’s just not Halo. Reach plays kinda like Halo, but deep down inside it’s not. I was expecting like a “greatest hits” of the Halo series, not a new game featuring stuff some Shadowrun developer thought balanced gameplay. I really don’t see a reason for putting Halo in the title except to sell copies.

Reticle bloom, whatever “lag forgiveness” code Bungie threw in there, consistency with the armor abilities, and the maps arent nearly as good as Halo past. I think AA are fine but you need consistency. I use AL all the time and sometimes I’ll pop someones shields when hes on my nuts and other times I dont, dieing in AL really ticks me off, when using evade getting shot in the head where my head used to be not where it is in the roll really Urks me. I think there are a lot of issues with Reach that could have been made better if they just refined it more. Armor Abilities feels like an unfinished product that needs more fine tuning. Those are my issues without going to deep and making this post forever long.

> > I’d have to say the aiming system is the biggest annoyance, that and the fact that if you stick someone with a plasma grenade and they have armor lock it’s not a kill anymore.
>
> Yeahh I agree, the aiming system is most DEFINITELY what turned me off the most!
>
> I played 8,334 games of Halo 2.
> About 6,000 across 2 accounts in H3.
> And Reach i’ll probably be at about 2-3 thousand tops in the same timeframe.
> It’s just not that fun because it doesn’t feel like the Halo that 1 2 and 3 did for me.
> I’ve been an avid Halo fan since 2001 and Reach just doesn’t have the same replay value in it’s Matchmaking that the other 2 had.

I’m with you I played a crazy amount of Halo 1. I never played H2 much due to me not having broadband, but H3 I played a ton, and I’m still playing Reach a lot but its not nearly as past Halo

I played Halo 3 last night, and just had FUN. Something I rarely have in Reach. I don’t know what it is. Bloom, AA’s, other imbalances. I don’t know, it just doesn’t feel like Halo to me…

> > I’d have to say the aiming system is the biggest annoyance, that and the fact that if you stick someone with a plasma grenade and they have armor lock it’s not a kill anymore.
>
> Yeahh I agree, the aiming system is most DEFINITELY what turned me off the most!
>
> I played 8,334 games of Halo 2.
> About 6,000 across 2 accounts in H3.
> And Reach i’ll probably be at about 2-3 thousand tops in the same timeframe.
> It’s just not that fun because it doesn’t feel like the Halo that 1 2 and 3 did for me.
> I’ve been an avid Halo fan since 2001 and Reach just doesn’t have the same replay value in it’s Matchmaking that the other 2 had.

amen.

> Because it’s so radically different from the other Halo games.

Change is good, but only if you do it a bit at a time, Reach shoved it in our faces and we were forced to adapt or accept that we have wasted money. I for one hate all the armor abilities, they aren’t used in skill, they are an excuse to have an extra 4 seconds of life. I am however pleased to see that the new classic playlist has no armor abilities in it, I just hope it’s enough to restore my faith in Halo. 343 and CA have done a banging job with the new maps, but the feeling is still there and it’s not going to dissapear quickly.

Well theres bloom for most people… then theres armor lock noobs

It feels too different from the past Halo games.

I totally dislike Armor Abilities when it comes to multiplayer. They basically all slow down the gameplay by prolonging kill times. It’s frustrating outplaying someone just to see him either getting invincible for a few seconds so his team can help him or to see him using Evade to escape his death.

Then you have maps which are really poorly designed. I don’t think it was a good decision to make multiplayer maps with the campaign in mind. All maps from the Noble and Defiant Map Pack are better than the default maps because they were exclusively made for multiplayer.

Another thing that’s wrong with Reach in my opinion is the ranking system.
The cR system was a good idea in theory but it totally destroyed one thing: The incentive to win.
What reason is there to go for the objective now? You get more cR for killing. You even get cR when you lose a game.
That’s exactly why so many people are AFKing and not even trying to win anymore. You get more cR just for completing
a game than you get for actually doing something. Global rank is now just a symbol showing how much you have played rather than how good you are.

I think Halo 3 did it much better. EXP for winning and if you lost you didn’t get anything.
Another negative thing is the Arena. The concept was good but the execution poor. The population in that playlist is very low compared to the non-ranked playlists.

In Halo 3 you had 2 ranking systems which required you to win games unlike Reach’s cR system:

System 1 was the 1-50 system. You had to win games to get a higher level. Higher level = higher global rank.

System 2 was introduced with TU2. Every playlist now had a progression system so by winning games you could get a playlist rank, for example 600 EXP to become a playlist General.

These 2 systems were extremely motivating and kept me playing without getting bored. Arena on the other side doesn’t interest me at all. I don’t want to play for a barely visible rank that gets reset after a few months. The majority of population doesn’t care about Arena either because nobody sees your division and because it doesn’t influence your global rank.

The competitive community never asked for the Arena. Was it really necessary to get rid of 1-50 just because of boosters and second account players? I don’t think so. At least people were motivated to play.

I couldn’t care less about my global rank which is Eclipse but once I get to Inheritor(which I will probably reach by the end of the year if I play much) I don’t see myself playing Reach that often anymore simply because the game is not much fun in it’s current state.

Anyway, The Classic playlist and Action Sack may become the only playlists I will play in this game. At least until the game gets a title update which could make the default gameplay much more enjoyable.

Firefight and Forge are good though. I enjoy these modes.