Remind me again why Reach was bad

#51phillyeagles123Posted 12/2/2012 3:28:08 PM
Mediocre campaign
Terrible maps
Unbalanced Armor Abilities (ie, Armor Lock)
Inconsistent bloom
Mini-nukes, er, I mean, grenades
Melee system was broken (Sprint + double melee was annoying)
No competitive ranking system
Firefight wasn't nearly as good as it was in ODST

Those are the most discussed reasons, but Reach wasn't bad, it was just the worst Halo.
#52Lionheart MasterPosted 12/2/2012 3:31:17 PM
the community
---
--
-
#53MetaIGearRexPosted 12/2/2012 3:32:23 PM
Demon Slicer posted...
In Reach, bloom doesn't just punish missed shots, it punishes everyone because it is literally impossible to kill someone with the DMR or Pistol before bloom becomes a factor. What this means is that in every 1v1 encounter, bloom is going to be the determining factor; you either spam your shots and play the odds, or you pace your shots and risk the other player's odds. Either way, chance is what determines the outcome.


So true.
---
My sarcastic tone doesn't translate over the Internet, which makes me sound like an ass. Usually I mean no offense.
#54Demon SlicerPosted 12/2/2012 3:41:59 PM
F_Wolf posted...
So...you sucked at it, so it must be bad, got it.


Logic and reading comprehension is hard for you, isn't it?
---
GT: Makes It Rayne
"Incendite tenebras mundi" - "Liberi Fatali"
#55Retribution75Posted 12/2/2012 3:44:08 PM
I'd say the biggest thing is the lack of memorable maps. Almost all of Halo 3 and 2 maps were terrifi except for a few duds. Also the arcadey, fast paced feel of Halo 2/3 was removed for a slower pace game, the lack of a BR was disappointing and the general interest in the game in general wasn't like it used to be with 2/3. Add to that Bloom and the unnecessary armor abilities, especially armor lock, really killed it for me. But mostly it was the lack of maps that made every game feel exciting like it did in 2/3. Was it a terrible game? No. Was it memorable to make you come back wanting more? No, and I believe that was the biggest downfall
---
Currently Playing: Halo 4
#56NightsOwlPosted 12/2/2012 4:36:33 PM
Reach is the only Halo I've enjoyed.
---
Not changing my signature until Breath of Fire VI or EBA2/Ouendan3 is announced.
People with Waifus need Laifus.
#57Silent RavenPosted 12/2/2012 4:53:26 PM(edited)
GollyFluff posted...
Maps sucked, armor lock, and bloom make reach a crappy game. I still like it but those flaws really hurt it


Yeah. Specifically on the maps bit, you would buy DLC maps for money...and then NEVER get to play them in match making unless you went in the nearly unpopulated map pack playlists. I swore never again, and I'm not buying any map packs for Halo 4, even though they seem to not be Forge whoring themselves out of a corner, there are at least 4 more maps (on disc) they haven't used at all in match making.

I keep playing the same 4 maps in the smaller game types, and the same 3 maps in the larger gametypes.

Also, it felt as if Bungie just "phoned it in" to get it done with so they could go make, whatever they're making for Activision.
---
Believe.
#58F_WolfPosted 12/2/2012 6:34:02 PM
Demon Slicer posted...
F_Wolf posted...
So...you sucked at it, so it must be bad, got it.


Logic and reading comprehension is hard for you, isn't it?


Look, I can plug random keywords into a rant generator also, lots of text does not equal a correct outlook or a good argument by default. I know you glanced at it and just got so overwhelmed you lost all rational thought and just assumed it must be correct, but I'm a big boy and can read and it's just full of opinionated garbage to cover up the fact they they can't handle the game.
#59RedWaggonPosted 12/2/2012 6:42:59 PM
In response to Demon Slicer, you make a good point. However, the probability that a spamming player's shots all hit the controlled player is very low. The player that chooses to control the space in between shots for a finer circle reticle (fine enough to fit the enemy's body or head) is more likely to win the fight. Yes, the controlled player doesn't shoot as fast, and in theory there is a possibility that all the spamming player's shots hit, but that probability is very low. To sum it up, chance doesn't determine the outcome of the battle. If the enemy is farther away, it is wiser to control the bloom, while if the enemy is close up, feel free to fire away. The bloom was meant to enable players to determine how accurate they want the reticle vs how fast they want the shots. Players have to judge distance to decide how fast they want to shoot. Sure, there's probably an exact distance where controlled vs spammed is a 50-50 shot, and there could also be a case where one player is controlling it slightly too much while the other is shooting slightly too fast, but for the most part, the player with the ability to make their firing rate adapt to the distance away from the enemy is way more likely to emerge victorious. That's a skill.
#60MetaIGearRexPosted 12/2/2012 6:46:20 PM
RedWaggon posted...
In response to Demon Slicer, you make a good point. However, the probability that a spamming player's shots all hit the controlled player is very low. The player that chooses to control the space in between shots for a finer circle reticle (fine enough to fit the enemy's body or head) is more likely to win the fight. Yes, the controlled player doesn't shoot as fast, and in theory there is a possibility that all the spamming player's shots hit, but that probability is very low. To sum it up, chance doesn't determine the outcome of the battle. If the enemy is farther away, it is wiser to control the bloom, while if the enemy is close up, feel free to fire away. The bloom was meant to enable players to determine how accurate they want the reticle vs how fast they want the shots. Players have to judge distance to decide how fast they want to shoot. Sure, there's probably an exact distance where controlled vs spammed is a 50-50 shot, and there could also be a case where one player is controlling it slightly too much while the other is shooting slightly too fast, but for the most part, the player with the ability to make their firing rate adapt to the distance away from the enemy is way more likely to emerge victorious. That's a skill.


Well thank god 343 doesn't share that sentiment.
---
My sarcastic tone doesn't translate over the Internet, which makes me sound like an ass. Usually I mean no offense.