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.
The only thing I didn't like about it was the initial maps it was released with. The maps after that were just fine. Loved the campaign. Other than CE, it's my favorite Halo to date. Haven't finished 4 yet so I can't comment on it yet.
Reach is my favorite game in the series so far. Keep in mind, I haven't played H4 yet, but I thought Reach was a great game. I don't fully understand the complaints either. After reading some in this topic so far, I can see people's frustration, but they didn't bother me so much. Issues like that just weren't a concern. I would have liked the game be a little more general, meaning more huge firefights and epic scenes, but I loved it. Best since H1.
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)
1) Campaign: - Characters were one dimensional and uninteresting (IMO the biggest problem) and the story didn't get much meaning behind it until the end of the game when you reach the "escort Cortana" phase - Overall story/mood seemed to retcon a lot of what was established in the book Fall of Reach
But those could have been overlooked if it weren't for multiplayer. MP in reach was AWFUL for this series: 2) Multiplayer: - Bloom, especially with how it was initially implemented, was a horrid mechanic that introduced too much randomness to gun battles.
- Armor Abilities were not balanced/integrated well for 4v4 play. They made the gameplay flow much more clunky than in previous Halo games
- The maps were horrid. Utterly terrible. There's a reason that the vast majority of maps, especially in a list like team slayer, are now forge maps, resulting in what is surely the grayest looking game of all time.
- Whatever trueskill system they had was implemented unbelievably badly. I don't know that I ever had a match where all players were of similar skill. It was worse than Halo 2 or Halo 3's social matchmaking.
The end result was a multiplayer game that was boring and only fun for goofing around in non-competitive gametypes (e.g. Big Team). There's no such thing, really, as competitive play in Reach. Even MLG is basically focused around turning Reach into Halo 3 v2. I can't even remember the last time I had any interest in playing 4v4 Team Slayer in Reach.
Reach is basically IMO what counts as a bad Halo game - throw in a campaign with no interesting story points and no interesting characters + a multiplayer that's boring, clunky, and broken compared to Halo 1/2/3, and you've got yourself a bad Halo game.
Never got into the competitive multiplayer, but I thoroughly enjoyed firefight and loved the campaign. The worst part about the game IMO was the motion blur/ghosting bungie used. That **** looks awful.
Never got into the competitive multiplayer, but I thoroughly enjoyed firefight and loved the campaign. The worst part about the game IMO was the motion blur/ghosting bungie put used. That **** looks awful.
It's a side affect of the anti-aliasing technique that they chose to implement, and yeah it looks HORRIBLE. I can't believe that no review mentioned it, because it's nauseating particularly in cutscenes.