PatchTuesday posted... Born_Stellar posted... well, reach was a disappointment in comparison to the rest of the main series. to me it represented a decline in bungie's ability to create games of the same standard as they used to. and yes, halo is supposed to be able to compete against games like CoD and battlefield, but reach just wasnt of the same calibre and thus fell behind rather quickly (when looking at xbl activity).but now bungie has passed the torch onward, and in my opinion this was for the best. I'd always wished they'd go out with a bang, but regretably all they managed was a rather disappointing crackle. better that than see them bring further decline to the franchise though.
I don't know that it said anything about Bungie's ability. To me it just seemed like they were weary of making Halo. And even then I'm always going to give them credit for Reach - there was some ambition, and some drive to inject some new life and features while trying not to stray too far from the formula of the first three. Execution was a little underwhelming but I think that's mostly because their heart wasn't in it. --- GT: Stringslayer420
ability and execution is directly bound to the attitude and ambition of the game developers. the fact that their heart wasnt in it was directly reflected in the work, and the fans (myself included) noticed this. as u said they were weary of making halo, and that is exactly why the best thing they could've done was to hand the franchise to a new game developer.
true, there was some innovations in reach, but again bungie's overall half-heartedness was reflected in the quality of these changes. we the fans felt that their efforts were sub-par, which is what led halo into this decline we have all experienced. and it is indeed a significant decline as research on this topic has shown.
personally i think that excusing their poor efforts by explaining that they simply didnt "feel it" is rather shameful and unnacceptable. simply phoning in a halo game... lets just say i couldnt be happier that bungie is no longer involved.
_Sawyer Posted 11/2/2011 6:32:53 AM
Many of their decisions were to make Reach more accessible in order to compete with CoD's massive boost in popularity. This backfired because it didn't bring in more people (the ones that stayed with CoD) than it pushed away. --- Teh Real Dejkha "Ya took my stuff"
DPW666 Posted 11/6/2011 8:47:15 PM
Artoo_D2 posted... Is Halo meant to compete against CoD and Battlefield?
No, CoD and Battlefield are meant to compete against Halo, seeing as Halo was here first --- http://www.trueachievements.com/Denial048.htm Times attacked by Mod Squad since 20/10/11: 25
Pinkenburg Posted 11/7/2011 8:54:50 PM
Why do people act like COD and battlefield are the only FPS's? Halo isnt anywhere near either one --- http://www.youtube.com/user/hungoverontues Good videos of my stuff
Born_Stellar Posted 11/8/2011 1:01:29 PM
theyre the top contenders.
Jipset Posted 11/10/2011 11:57:17 AM
That's like asking if Mario is meant to compete with Ratchet and Clank.
_Sawyer Posted 11/10/2011 1:46:31 PM
From: skaterguy777 Why do people act like COD and battlefield are the only FPS's? Halo isnt anywhere near either one
...Are there others with a successful MP? --- Teh Real Dejkha "Ya took my stuff"
Mr_arizona Posted 11/13/2011 9:16:24 PM
Instead of this game vs this game vs this game look at it like play and enjoy this game and this game and this game.
Legit2Quit Posted 11/14/2011 7:07:02 PM
Quality-wise, the Halo series is indefinitely better than either series.