• Halo Reach Six Years Later
    81 replies, posted
[video=youtube;VvF-Obh_BBI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvF-Obh_BBI[/video] This guy articulates pretty well the reasons why Reach is probably my least favorite Halo game that I've played.
It's not my favorite Halo, but fuck me if that last level isn't awesome.
[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;51213262]It's not my favorite Halo, but fuck me if that last level isn't awesome.[/QUOTE] i'm getting the lube
Obligatory [video=youtube;sXasCjUTNpE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXasCjUTNpE[/video]
Reach still had the best forge.
I can't believe it's been six years, it does not feel like it's been that long
Is this guy steve blum's son?
Bias incoming. I thought Halo Reach was one of the best in the series, I'm already complaining to my computer monitor about his arguments. [quote] "They wanted the Covenant to be a real threat, they failed because the tutorial level didn't show them as a threat. I'm going to ignore the rest of the game." "They should've let the player find the beacon. If the player found the beacon, the squad will suck them off for finding the beacon. That will improve squad relations." I agree with the terrible level design for the first level being terrible. As for him bitching about enemies being too easy to kill, I'm wondering what difficulty he's playing on. I'm probably going to have to replay halo reach because I genuinely don't remember it being as bad as him describing it.[/quote] Like I had to stop here because I just really really don't agree with anything he says and I feel that this is going to be a common theme. He's bitching about "stupid" narration at the end, acting like it's the biggest problem, which is probably also the biggest fucking nitpick.
enemies steamroll you on legendary and sure as hell make elites horrifying.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51213528]Bias incoming. I thought Halo Reach was one of the best in the series, I'm already complaining to my computer monitor about his arguments. Like I had to stop here because I just really really don't agree with anything he says and I feel that this is going to be a common theme. He's bitching about "stupid" narration at the end, acting like it's the biggest problem, which is probably also the biggest fucking nitpick.[/QUOTE] Also the reticule bloom for the DMR being an annoyance after 4 matches and having no strategic value? Fucking what? Sure you could hit everyone at almost any distance but it also meant that you had to control your shots if you wanted that headshot and required much more mastering than any it of the following game's iterations of the guns.
His complaints about the armour abilities are the same inane crap from 6 years ago. He says that armour lock, sprint, dodge, and the jetpack are all bad because they "Don't require you to have good positioning" which is utter bullshit. Sprint and dodge have nothing to do with positioning, and when used at the wrong time are an almost guaranteed death sentence. Armour lock makes you immune to damage for a short time, but it also leaves you without shields and surrounded by enemies if used incorrectly. I stopped watching as soon as he got to the sudden deaths. I know exactly how this complaint is going to go because I've read it a hundred times back when Reach was the newest Halo game. I know exactly where this 'review' is going and I can't put another 20 minutes of my time into it. Does anyone else hate this type of review? He's not approaching the game from an academic or historical perspective, he's just bitching about the things he doesn't like and stating his opinions as though they were facts. You can be negative about a game while still presenting a fair review. Look at MathewMatosis' review of Dark Souls 2, instead of bitching about shit he doesn't like and inserting snide title cards he explains what he doesn't like, why he doesn't like it, and how he thinks it could have been improved.
oh fucking god i just can't stop [quote]"I'm going to complain about a gamemode that obviously isn't for me. I don't like being an ultra powerful spartan with unlimited rocket ammo so that means the gamemode sucks." "Firefight is weak because they added a points system. It's not about surviving anymore, it's about how well you perform which sucks." "Firefight is also weak because you're a super-soldier. I don't understand why people take joy on going on alien rampages as a demigod." "Firefight puts you in an arena. Halo isn't about fighting in arenas therefor firefight is weak." (This isn't even a strawnman, this is his actual point)[/quote]
[QUOTE=Firetornado;51213412]Reach still had the best forge.[/QUOTE] Someone never used Halo 5's forge. It is a lot better, and builds on all the ones before.
[QUOTE=Tuskin;51213593]Someone never used Halo 5's forge. It is a lot better, and builds on all the ones before.[/QUOTE] I never bought halo 5 because I saw these videos and was extremely angry: [video=youtube;eN_tD5y6k6s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN_tD5y6k6s[/video][video=youtube;ahRDm9Bwlyc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahRDm9Bwlyc[/video] Insulting as fuck to the halo series, I refuse to support that shit. [QUOTE]Shut up fans...adults are talking[/QUOTE]
Well Halo 5 Forge is free on Windows 10, it's pretty damn good. You're able to make all sorts of maps. I will agree with the OP video on a point here, Invasion was the fucking best and I'm sad to see it gone.
Why the fuck is this guy complaining about chokepoint camping areas? This guy would have a point if it was King of the Hill, but for all other gamemodes this argument is ridiculous. The main objective for most game modes isn't "Kill this guy who's camping here", it's kill people. You literally don't have to be a dumbfuck and charge in a small room where a guy with a shotgun in camping in. And I really need some citations on Halo Reach's ranking system. He claims that ranking is based on time, not skill, and I seriously hope he's not referring to the mostly cosmetic leveling system that has absolutely nothing to do with how matchmaking works. Self anecdotal evidence, I discovered that matchmaking is based on skill for each separate game mode. If you play nothing but team slayer, get to where your skill level is, then play a new different game mode like king of the hill, you will be put up against a mix of new to average players since you've never played that game mode before.
I didn't like all the special abilities they added to multiplayer. They should've just kept it simple like the first three Halos. Don't fix what isn't broken.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51213653]Why the fuck is this guy complaining about chokepoint camping areas? This guy would have a point if it was King of the Hill, but for all other gamemodes this argument is ridiculous. The main objective for most game modes isn't "Kill this guy who's camping here", it's kill people. You literally don't have to be a dumbfuck and charge in a small room where a guy with a shotgun in camping in. And I really need some citations on Halo Reach's ranking system. He claims that ranking is based on time, not skill, and I seriously hope he's not referring to the mostly cosmetic leveling system that has absolutely nothing to do with how matchmaking works. Self anecdotal evidence, I discovered that matchmaking is based on skill for each separate game mode. If you play nothing but team slayer, get to where your skill level is, then play a new different game mode like king of the hill, you will be put up against a mix of new to average players since you've never played that game mode before.[/QUOTE] Halo Reach uses the exact same skill ranking system as Halo 3. It's Microsoft's [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueSkill]TrueSkill[/url] ranking system, the exact same as in Halo 3, 4, and 5.
[QUOTE=RaptorJGW;51213265]i'm getting the lube[/QUOTE] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSEZHX-M5HM[/media] Agree to disagree.
Gotta admit, it's really ballsy criticizing Reach, although he makes very good points. Reach is not a perfect game. It's basically the Resident Evil 4 of the series: different, yet great in it's own right. And also, like Resident Evil 4, it defined the series for the next set of developers that worked on it, for better and worse. These are very valid criticisms of the game. I don't expect people to agree with them, however. Most people have their own opinions on it, and very good memories, as do I. I must have been only 13 when I first played it, so it left a huge impact on me. But we can't look at it through rose-tinted glasses. I think a lot of people like it so much because it was Bungie's last Halo game, but it was also a turning point for the series in terms of quality. The original Halo trilogy was quotable. Like, movie quotable. I remember almost no lines from Reach. Most of it's quality and memorable aspects lie in multiplayer, and that seems to hold true with 343's entries, with 4 being memorable for having a notably subpar campaign overall. Now I haven't played 5 (nor do I plan on it), but from what I've heard it suffers the same problem. As much as I love Reach, it ain't perfect, but I'll be damned if it's not fun, and at the end of the day Bungie did their best, and I applaud them for that.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51213669]Halo Reach uses the exact same skill ranking system as Halo 3. It's Microsoft's [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueSkill]TrueSkill[/url] ranking system, the exact same as in Halo 3, 4, and 5.[/QUOTE] Then I'm incredibly confused about his argument. [url]https://youtu.be/VvF-Obh_BBI?t=1635[/url] "Due to unbalanced matchmaking, it's frequent for [Supply Drop Games] to degenerate into the "Richer getting Richer" until the other team quits out. A large contributor to this headache is the game's lack of a trueskill matchmaking system... ... Halo reach took [the idea of cosmetic rank titles] and expanded it to the whole game. Everything you do, earns you experience points and credits to purchase items for your spartan. But not only was the experience system such a grind that players resulted to farming with a target designator, but there was only one skill based playlist called: The Arena. It meant for that every other playlist in the game, there is nothing in ensure you're matched up with a similar skill level. " Even "casual" playlists had trueskill put into it. It's like Dota 2's matchmaking. There's ranked, and then there's normal, but both have a skill based matchmaking system.
[QUOTE=Firetornado;51213614]I never bought halo 5 because I saw these videos and was extremely angry: [video=youtube;eN_tD5y6k6s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN_tD5y6k6s[/video][video=youtube;ahRDm9Bwlyc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahRDm9Bwlyc[/video] Insulting as fuck to the halo series, I refuse to support that shit.[/QUOTE] Didn't AngryJoe get some stuff wrong about H5 though? Like the stuff he said about REQ packs being in competitive multiplayer is wrong.
i couldn't disagree harder with this guy. while he has a point when it comes to certain cinematic setpieces, especially the part with the pelican, i found the story engaging and fun. plus i've wanted firefight to return in it's same capacity ever since. warzone firefight is lame as hell i just want to make a custom game with my friends.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;51213560]enemies steamroll you on legendary and sure as hell make elites horrifying.[/QUOTE] The hell they do. The "combo" is only more effective in 3 than reach, which is second in completion time. Basically you use your standard BnB weapons to fucking flatten the elites, which doesn't match the cutscenes where you're scrambling to to keep your ass intact at all, and that's one of the game's salient issues, along with "ok it's time for X to die" story progression. There's a huge disconnect between the cuts and the gameplay. You always have cover, you're hardly ever forced to rely on default crap weapons and slog it out, and while it isn't the absolute steamroll that 3 is, it's a fuckload easier than anything else. Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.
bah, who needs legendary when you have the Operation Trebuchet conversion for Arma 3 now pair that with ACE3 and youre going to see what hell on earth is
I have to say that I feel Reach has probably the best singleplayer of any Halo game but I found the multiplayer (not including Forge) a real step back from Halo 3 and pretty forgettable. I think it was the combination of loadouts and weak forge heavy map pools that stopped me playing pretty quickly which, given how many hours I sank into Halo 3 is saying something.
I thought Reach was the best game Bungie has made to date The multiplayer was fun and the netcode was super smooth and I haven't had an experience like it in its successors. The armor lock was probably the only downside I could really think of. The single player was great self contained story with memorable characters, and the soundtrack is a masterpiece.
[QUOTE=MisterM;51213893]I have to say that I feel Reach has probably the best singleplayer of any Halo game but I found the multiplayer (not including Forge) a real step back from Halo 3 and pretty forgettable.[/QUOTE] Really? It was the opposite for me. I think 3 had the best campaign, but Reach brought so much to the table for Forge, at least in terms of building levels. Controlling item physics and having greater control over moving pieces made building much easier and more enjoyable. Reach Forge was some of the most fun I've ever had with a level creator in the game. Not going to argue with you on the general multiplayer, though.
Didn't read anything but I personally really liked Reach. It was different than three but really fun.
ODST was actually my favorite but that apparently is fighting words in many circles.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.