How did you guys take Reach?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Halo 4
  3. How did you guys take Reach?

User Info: chirf

6 years ago#1

Halo Reach was probably the only Halo game that came out that DIDN'T have me looking through forums. I never really got to see what the halo fanbase really thought of it.

The popularity of Reach also helps me get a better understand of what Halo 4 might be tuned to be like. Maybe more-so Reach or less-so Reach.


But basically, what did you guys think of Reach? Did you prefer it over the other Halo's or are you just playing it, waiting for the next Halo to come out?

User Info: Famine_10f4

6 years ago#2

I preferred Reach over Halo 3, but Halo 2 still takes the cake.

Halo Reach had some good ideas but was poorly executed. For instance Armour Lock which was intended to deflect explosions became a death pause button.

I also felt that it was kind of cheap how the MP maps were all taken from the campaign... Some of them were good like Sword Base but the majority were pretty meh.

As for campaign by far the worse in the series. The destruction of Reach was hardly felt, I got a little bit of a connection with some of the characters but again I think it could have been done better, and over all the missions and story was just so lack-luster

Also there was a ton of missed potential, for instance if you never read the books or listened to the dev docs you would have no idea that these were Spartan IIIs you were playing as... Also why did we not see the Chief? A small cameo would have really benefited the story of Reach and Chief as well. And of course *spoilers* the way the characters die is sooo lame...

Over all if it weren't for the MP being better than Halo 3 (opinion) I wouldn't have held onto it for so long.

User Info: chirf

6 years ago#3

I agree, Halo 2 takes the cake.


Also, I would just like to add that they made the multiplayer maps first, then gave them to the campaign people and told them to implement them into the campaign. Still cheap for the campaign, but at least it means they put more thought into the MP maps first, since the MP lasts the longest.


Reach wasn't BAD, in my opinion, it was just... idk... yea, like you said, I feel like it had the potential to be something special, but didn't present it very well.

User Info: Born_Stellar

6 years ago#4

reach was far from terrible. but it wasn't at all in the same league as the rest of the main series. it was ok, and relatively enjoyable. for a halo game that doesn't cut it. bungie had set a standard for themselves which they just didn't meet, hence the wide-felt disappointment.

the main thing bungie did wrong in reach was try to bring in aspects from other FPS games, namely CoD. the reason why this was so wrong is that people who play halo play it because its completely different from other main stream FPS games (as much as is possible for games within the same genre). bringing in elements that are meant to emulate a game mechanic from another game makes it feel less like halo, and more like some sort of sub-par hybrid. the fans wanted change and improvement, don't get me wrong, but what bungie did was not improving upon halo, instead they slapped on game elements that were successful in other games. halo fans rejected these new elements like an incompatible transplanted organ.

that about covers multiplayer, on to single player. reach has recieved well deserved crticism for lack of character development. they introduced a whole new GROUP of spartans (holy crap did they bite of more than they could chew) and attempted to, in ONE game, make halo fans love them as much as we do the chief. they failed. Hell, they didn't even TRY to give the spartan you were playing a personality. however, while the character development was sorely lacking depth, all the supporting characters got at least some focus, but what about the MAIN character's personality? almost nothing. a faceless blank slate. have you ever read a book or watched a movie where the writers focus on developing the personality of the supporting characters but not the main character? no, of course you haven't, because that's not how you write a story! the editors would have thrown it back in their faces.

not only did the story fail to present adequate character development, but it also didn't make it feel like what the fall of reach really was. a losing battle. personally, I didn't once feel like I was losing the war, hell I was kicking some major ass, and then the game has the nerve to tell me that despite all of this reach will still fall? mind you, I've read the fall of reach by eric nylund about 3 or 4 times at this point, so I knew what was coming, and still i felt this way. also, having read the book, I knew that the key to the battle for reach was the generator complex for the orbital super mac guns, which wasn't mentioned ONCE. not once. instead we were farting around protecting civilians and blowing up random covenant structures. I felt  like I was sitting on the bench the entire game waiting to do something that actually mattered. sure we got to blow up a covenant super carrier, but that was just one ship in an armada. only during the last few missions did we do anything of importance. for goodness sake, we were playing as spartans, not as the marine clean up crew.

all in all the story made me feel like I was doing pointless busy work, and not playing the part of the hero. it almost felt like the game held me back on purpose, to make me feel like I was winning by giving me the easy tasks, like some child.

I am a die hard halo fan. I love the halo story in its entirety, my favorite book being the fall of reach. the prospect of a game depicting this epic battle was supposed to be BETTER than the book, because I'd actually get to play it. this didn't happen. bungie let me down. sure my hopes were high, but the other halo games managed to satisfy these expectations.



User Info: Born_Stellar

6 years ago#5

felt more like you were playing the camera man, not the hero.

User Info: clusterm

6 years ago#6
I took it pretty badly to be honest. Bloom I foresaw as a problem immediately, a problem which met my expectations; and after the beta, the general feel I got for the maps also had me worried, there needs to be, as someone said, less ripped-from-campaign maps, and more original designs with textures from campaign at the most, which is where they went wrong.

Forge. Amazing... yet at the same time, disappointing. The lack of truly customizable areas other than forge world, and a different set of textures/designs for walls/buildings made it grow fairly thin pretty quickly.

Armor abilities/load outs... cool idea/bad idea. The armor abilities were cool, with tweaks, they could actually add without being either, useless, or overused (e.x. AL only blocks explosive damage, and the hologram takes on the function of cloak and generates a radar scrambler on the holo). Tie into load outs; Make people pick up their good weapons. I care less about being spawn trapped by better weapons, if you let it happen, you deserve it and you should have to work to get out of it, not be handed a free exit. Make AAs pick-up-able, like over-shield and cloak from halo2/3. Makes it so not everyone has the abilities, and it adds more strategy/variety to the encounters.

And one of my pet peeves. The Radar. Remove this above and below s**t, it's annoying. If I see a red dot, it'll make me clear my area, then think about whether they're above or below me and act accordingly, do NOT hand me the EXACT enemy location in relation to my apparently pathetic self who can't locate someone with the 'tiny' amount of information given by the old radar. It gave you the info needed to orient yourself to a coming threat, if you see no one, but have a blip on your radar and a ceiling over your head, GUESS WHAT, he's below you; if you have a room above you and a floor below, suck it up, take a chance, and try not to get owned.

*cough* Reach attempted to implement mechanics that obviously seemed to cater towards a larger crowd, increasing accessibility (sprint, I'm looking at you). Halo has never been about accessibility in my mind (opinion), the noobs get stomped until they learn to play, and the good players stomp until they meet equally good players and get to have a challenge.

Rambling without a point (and with more than likely incorrect statements in most people's eyes) and just venting satisfies me.

Oh Right...campaign...

It was okay.

(Mandatory addition stating that I'm a Halo 2 fanboy and take what I say with that in mind)
GT: Ranqer ::Currently playing:: Resonance of Fate, FF13, Deus Ex: Hum. Rev., El Shaddai, Enchanted Arms, DM:MME, Lost Odyssey.

User Info: The_Beanster

6 years ago#7
Reach was bad by Halo standards.

The campaign - much lauded by reviewers - was IMO worse than any Halo game in many respects. The story was awful, the characters were worse, and they retconned a lot of stuff that didn't need retconn-ing. Everything about the story and presentation was awful; not just bad for Halo but just flat out bad.

The campaign's gameplay was excellent, however, with some of the best and most consistent level design in the series. Helps that there was no awful flood level like every previous game had.

MP is a huge step backwards from H3. Bloom is broken, the maps are bad, AAs can be annoying, player movement is too slow, and kill times are WAY too slow. There's no ranking system, so you're always getting matched with and against awful kids for matches that aren't any fun. Matching individuals against parties was also an idiotic idea. Arena is not fun or motivating to play. Forge world is fine but results in the greyest multiplayer experience ever.

I have some faith in 343 now that they're fixing some things (like bloom), so I'm hoping that they make H4 better. There was much that could be improved from H3, so I'm hoping we get something like that - essentially a refined version of H2. I don't want a refined version of Reach; many of Reach's decisions result by their very nature in a broken MP experience.
athlon ii x4 @ 3.0 ghz| 8800 GTS 320 Mb Pci-e| 3 GB DDR2 pc4200 RAM
Currently Playing: Borderlands, Mass Effect 2 || GT: The Ownage

User Info: Ovirew

6 years ago#8

I thought Reach was okay, but I liked Halo 3 and ODST more from a story and action perspective.  Reach had some pretty good moments, like when you fought beside each of the Noble Team characters in different missions, and there were a few Noble Team members I liked more than others.  It was nice to see the events of Reach in a Halo game for once, even if it wasn't quite like I imagined it would be.

I liked that the game wasn't afraid to take some risks and try new things.  I didn't mind armor abilities and a lot of the new gameplay modes like invasion and generator defense.  I liked some of the new weapons like the grenade launcher and spike cannon, and I enjoyed loadouts and commendations.  I think it's essential for the Halo series to try new things, even if the fans **** and moan about it, and I hope some of these things will be transferred over to Halo 4.  Heck, I hope Halo 4 makes a lot of drastic changes for the better.

So, guess I'd say I was satisfied with Reach.  I enjoyed it pretty much like I did the other Halo games, and I was happy with the new things it brought to the table for the series.

User Info: JohnO_o

6 years ago#9
I liked it.
These are words that look cool.

User Info: _Sawyer

6 years ago#10

From: The Beanster
Reach was bad by Halo standards.

Pretty much this.
Teh Real Dejkha
"Ya took my stuff"
  1. Boards
  2. Halo 4
  3. How did you guys take Reach?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived