Dear Halo Reach Critics...

#41motosyko21Posted 11/9/2012 7:52:51 AM
Campaign was a one and done kind of thing for me, compared to the previous games. Maps were okay until they started screwing with the spawn points. (Loved Countdown!)
Hated bloom.
Grenades, far too powerful, far too plentiful.
(personal opinion) Didn't care for any of the armor abilities aside from sprint.

Ended up playing SWAT more than anything, to avoid grenades and armor abilities.
#42poopnolanPosted 11/9/2012 7:59:22 AM
Why you ask? For me its because of a myriad of bizarre design descisons that were uncharacteristic of Bungie. Since Halo 1 they have down certain things in a certain way, and its obvious that Reach was an exception.

Before I begin with why many Halo fans feel divided with Reach I feel like I should outline some things first. I did "enjoy" the game. As a game it was fun, and I didn't regret purchasing it. Also I must point out that any Gamefaqs simpleton that tries to liken Halo fans to Zelda fans with the whole "we hate the current Halo" trend is an absolute bafoon. All of my friends and family who have been with Halo for years all loved 3 at its launch, and so far are loving 4. Reach was the odd one out, and heres why.

First, the campaign. I like many read The Fall of Reach. The game doesn't do the novel any justice. It retcons and ignores like a George Lucas film, and its obvious that from the outset that Bungie felt that since they pioneered Halo that they didn't need to pay special heed to the novels. This is fine I guess. The only problem is that they were the ones that gave permission in the first place and even wrote a Halo Bible for authors to use. They literally retconned their own material, and many fans were irate.

Second, the maps. There wasn't enough of them, and the ones that were there varied from lackluster, to absymal. This game just wasn't up to snuff with the high quality maps presented to us in 1/2/3. Bungie gave us classics like Lockout and Guardian for Christs sake, these maps just didn't measure up. Maps like Sword Base and Zealot bring such foul memories into my head, and the worst part of it was Forge World. Bungie relied so much on that map being the thing which will add longevity to Reach long after they left. Thing is, that map was ugly. Everything was gray and unimaginative, and it made it that much worse for people forging great maps. Reaches vanilla map situation was pathetic. Luckily the two map packs and the Anniversary maps were great, but they weren't disc maps.

Third, the armor abilities. They weren't handled properly. If you watch early developer interviews, they wanted it to be a Rock v Paper v Scissors system, and it never was. The problem with it tied together with the map problem, the maps just weren't built to accommodate the abilites. Things like jetpack and armor lock would slow down/introduce annoying facets to a sandbox known for balance. Its obvious that these abilities were put into the game late into development cycle.

And I can go on and on. The fact that the maps were from campaign left a salty taste in my mouth, the fact that there was no real ranking system, the fact that they slowed down movement speed/jump height, but they increased grenade damage. Whose brilliant idea was this? The whole "SIII's are slower and weaker that SII's" debate shouldn't be included in the multiplayer space. The game just felt sluggish. The bloom added a random factor to lots of one on one encounters, something no FPS should do. The washed out colors, etc. When you couple all of these problems together you can see how someone who is used to a certain quality can be disappointed. We aren't being hipsters when we say we were disappointed with Reach, we are being honest.

I'm so sorry for that wall, it wasn't meant to be one.
---
Wow
#43SergioMach5Posted 11/9/2012 8:12:30 AM
I feel the story and co-op firefight modes were the best the series has done, but at the same time the multiplayer was a bit of a letdown in comparison to Halo 3. Ill stick to why I didnt like the multiplayer as much as the story/coop.

My problem with the multiplayer was that it strayed a bit too far away from the Halo mechanics by adding more 'modern' nuisances that made the first 3 games so much fun.

Incorporating armour abilities like Sprint, jetapack etc. was not as fun for me as picking them up as powerups would have been. Something about the relatively simple overshield/invisibility is brill.

and then, a real letdown for me was the progression system, that seems to have made it into Halo 4, but I wont judge until I play it tomorrow. Halo 2 and 3 had the social and ranked playlists, so you could be competitive AND have a good time/have fun in the same game. Reach had the xp credits that didnt incentivise playing competitively. So you could enjoy the games, but I was longing for an intense Halo experience after a while, such as frantically defending a base from an enemy assault in Halo 3.

Maps were designed around the AA's rather than the weapons, most notably sword base which lent itself to the jetpack. It also felt like bungie went around building the 'biggest' maps, such as Forge world and Spire, without seeing how they could be incorporated well into the base multiplayer modes. A game of slayer on a purpose built slayer map is better than on a map designed for one invasion game, and not exciting in any other mode.

and there are a few nitpicks that everyone else goes on about such as Armor lock, Reticle Bloom, less 'colourful' maps, and gaming fatigue from the constantly made forged maps in playlists instead of a map with different artistic style, but its not that bad.

Ultimately Reach was a multiplayer letdown for me, but even then its better than anything the recent CoD's have come out with, and I do enjoy it even after all that criticism. It just isnt my favourite Halo experience. Hoping Ill enjoy Halo 4 over the weekend
---
Wants sequels to Timesplitters, Amped 2, Mirrors Edge, Sleeping Dogs, Burnout and Need For Speed Underground.
#44BryanPS360Posted 11/9/2012 8:14:01 AM
My problems with Reach:

1)Most of the MP maps, that weren't constructed in Forge World, were pulled out of the campaign.

2)The Forge World remakes of older maps (Hemorrhage, Pinnacle, Asylum) seemed soulless compared to their Halo 2 counterparts.

3)Armor Lock. Now I don't necessarily have an issue with it's presence, but more with it's implementation. I originally thought that it could be activated for only a small window of time (2-3 seconds) to avoid an explosion or vehicle splatter which seemed cool. The duration it ended up with, however, was much longer than I had anticipated and was easily abused.

4)I didn't like the way it looked. I mean I thought the graphics were good, but the whole gritty/dark look didn't sit well with me. I like my Halo experience to be a colorful one.

5)The music wasn't that good.

Now with all that being said, I still thought Reach was a very good game. It is simply my least favorite Halo title.
---
XBGT:ABN THUG 210 PSN: ABNTHUG210
#45CaptainLukaPosted 11/9/2012 8:18:52 AM
Apparently me having a preference and hating Reach is the same as me bashing it. Weird.

Anyways, I mostly hated it because they retconned the crap out of the book, which I thought was great. But that's fine. It's their story. The second largest reason I hated it was because of the credit system. Last, the multiplayer just felt off somehow. I didn't care for the AAs in Reach, but I enjoy them in H4 for whatever reason.
---
My spell check just had a mental breakdown...
#46fiasco86Posted 11/9/2012 8:23:26 AM
mr_blobby213 posted...
For me, Reach was the best Halo since CE.

---
Halo 1 LAN vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhjWnJU2EKY
Number of times Killean_Nuggets has invalidated someone's post based solely on their Halo skill: 7
#47DOSFPosted 11/9/2012 8:35:29 AM
BrazenHunter076 posted...
The campaign was all right. I don't have a ton of issues there, other than the somewhat sub-par character development. But that's a whole nother issue.


I've seen this a fair few times when it comes to Reach, but wonder why it is only being brought up with Reach specifically, when the Halo series as a whole has featured dull characters. Mainly Cortana and MC.
---
"I'M HERE TO SAVE YOU! Right after I get done rubbing my arse against this wall." - Arctic_Sunrise
#48Predaking 2Posted 11/9/2012 8:37:04 AM
This site has a very VOCAL MINORITY regarding the apparent low quality of Reach. But many people outside of this website actually do enjoy Reach.

Heck, you can even look at the rating (4.5 out of 5) on the game's dashboard details, and the rating was from 47000+ voters.

Never let these whiners get to you. They'll whine and complain, but you can enjoy your game.
---
Are people with fat fingers allowed to become proctologists?
#49Erroneous_SnakePosted 11/9/2012 8:40:01 AM
Reach >>>> Halo 3
---
This message has been brought to you from my Galaxy Nexus
#50The BeansterPosted 11/9/2012 8:40:48 AM
DOSF posted...
BrazenHunter076 posted...
The campaign was all right. I don't have a ton of issues there, other than the somewhat sub-par character development. But that's a whole nother issue.


I've seen this a fair few times when it comes to Reach, but wonder why it is only being brought up with Reach specifically, when the Halo series as a whole has featured dull characters. Mainly Cortana and MC.


Because the dynamic between MC & Cortana provides a relational dynamic that's missing from Reach - there are no interesting relational dynamics between any characters in Reach. They're all one-note stereotypes with nothing interesting going on at all.
---
i7-2600k @ 4.8 Ghz | 2x MSI 7970 Lightning @ 1200/1800 | 8 GB DDR3-1600 RAM
Currently Playing: Halo 4, Sleeping Dogs || GT: The Ownage