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.
Now with that being said...
I keep running into topics on here where people are bashing/flaming Halo: Reach; "Reach was awful"; Reach was garbage"; I hated Reach"; Halo Reach is the worst game in the series"... etc.
The questions I pose to y'all is:
1) WHY was Reach so bad? I played it up until Halo 4 came out, and I really have no major complaints. For Bungie's last go at Halo, I felt they did a good job.
2) Are they mainly just opinion based, or are there any legitimate reasons as to why Reach "sucked"? Note I am talking about the whole game, not just campaign or matchmaking.
I'm looking for constructive criticisms, thanks. Trolls will be ignored. :)
Bonus question: What exactly qualifies as a "bad" Halo game? I have played all of them and I think each installment is good in its own unique way (minus Halo Wars, never played that one so I can't offer any input)
For me, it was because it wasn't nearly as competitive as the previous Halo games.
Pokemon White FC: 2236-6428-5930
I think reach>Halo 4...aside from dominion.
the overall flow of reach seemed better then this
"Apparently the phrase "mile high club" equals sex to some and COD to others lol" -wretchedsmurf
Halo Reach was aight.
It had Captain Keyes after all~
~Grimno (The Eccentric Gamer) "I don't need luck, I have ammo."
Dragon's Dogma Pawn - Ridmond
Don't know if people disliked the MP but Reach had the best campaign outside of CE for me.
Reach sucked because they slowed down the pace of the game by decreasing damage, player movement, and adding unbalanced AA's. The maps were horrible, grenades were mini nukes, Arena was garbage, and the bloom was too random. The whole multiplayer was a mess.
I liked reach mainly because you actually got to play as your own spartan, and loved the freedom of customization of said spartan, had hours of multiplayer fun on it. Even though I'd read fall of reach and knew what was coming was still an interesting story, though I still think Kat's death was cheap and obviously rushed because they weren't sure of a set piece to lose her.
Message likely typed from phone, please excuse errors.
GT: Tiny5th PSN: Aethergoggles
Most people who disliked Reach is because of the multiplayer.
To me, the multiplayer was simply not fun. Has nothing to do with skill or sucking at it. I sucked at Halo 3's MP yet had tons of fun with it. It's the feel of the gameplay, the mechanics and why the game isn't fun that's the issue.
With that being said, I found the campaign to be great.
PSN: SYRAPH , GT: TheRealSyraph
Backlog on hold. Currently playing: Halo 4
Before I go any further, allow me to say the purpose of this topic is not to troll or to flame.
Well, honestly, I would sing you the song but you already know the words. Bloom, armor lock, all that snusiness. The issue is that the game was designed from the getgo to be slower, which in my opinion, makes it a bad Halo game.
Well...It's not really my opinion there. Reach WAS a bad Halo game. It may have been a decent shooter by itself, but with Halo in the title, it was extremely lacking.
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.
Xbox Gamertag: Swaggerbeard
PSN ID: BrazenSwagger
Reach campaign was the only one i never felt any drive to go back and play, the multiplayer was spoiled by bad maps at least in my opinion.
Add user to Ignore List after reporting