Halo: Reach - Games - Facepunch Forum

Why is Halo 2 getting so much hate in this thread? It's an absolutely fantastic game, what do you guys have against it?

I'm not a fan of Halo 2 either, compared to the first and third games, but then again I think the whole series is average in the end anyway. However, multiplayer-wise they're the biggest console shooters around and it's respectable to the point that i'll play them when I feel like it. Reach has lots of interesting stuff but I missed out on the Beta. Anything I should be getting hyped for, 'cause i'm a sucker for customization and people mentioned it somewhere. Not to mention, Blood Gulch's Valhalla-esque return.

I don't think 2 was bad either. It was the second in a trilogy. It ended on a cliffhanger so that's why most people don't like it.

I think Halo 2 was the best one. But that could be because I have spent the most hours on it though.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;23338582]Halo 2 was the shit one.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Brandon4257;23332621]The only halo's that sucked were. Halo 2, and Halo wars[/QUOTE] I thought Halo 2 was fun :C

[QUOTE=RikohZX;23341910]I'm not a fan of Halo 2 either, compared to the first and third games, but then again I think the whole series is average in the end anyway. However, multiplayer-wise they're the biggest console shooters around and it's respectable to the point that i'll play them when I feel like it. Reach has lots of interesting stuff but I missed out on the Beta. Anything I should be getting hyped for, 'cause i'm a sucker for customization and people mentioned it somewhere. Not to mention, Blood Gulch's Valhalla-esque return.[/QUOTE] Pretty much my view, and the story is unoriginal dross, and was only executed well in Halo CE (Well, I can't comment on Wars, ODST and Reach, being as I've played none of those). But they're good fun, generally. Oh, that and the glaring inconsistencies in the plot to justify Master Chief being a huge-ass mary sue (Especially technical inconsistencies), and the huge arse retcons (Story-wise and technological) that Reach is causing. But otherwise fun games

I also missed out on the beta. Can someone explain to me some of the new stuff that has been coming out for the game?

I just want to know the story. Say what you want about the games themselves, but the story they tell is actually pretty good, especially adding in the books. After Halo 1 the games were kinda eh... Halo 2 was fun, Halo 3 was OK. I'm not really sure about ODST. Reach was fun from the beta, but like I said I'm mostly interested in the story.

[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;23335033]I want to see a Forge option for Firefight mode so I can build forts to fight from.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure you can do that, but it won't count towards achievements or challenges or anything like that.

[QUOTE=DIG.iMAGE;23337640]I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I didn't think Halo 3 was bad... at all. I'm definitely looking forward to continuing the story though with reach.[/QUOTE] your not gonna get flamed. Facepunch is full of bandwagon-ers, so if they say "HALO 3 is shit", they are just trying to fit in. Unless if they truly dislike it, which i doubt is the case [editline]03:43AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Craigewan;23344256]Pretty much my view, and the story is unoriginal dross, and was only executed well in Halo CE (Well, I can't comment on Wars, ODST and Reach, being as I've played none of those). But they're good fun, generally. Oh, that and the glaring inconsistencies in the plot to justify Master Chief being a huge-ass mary sue (Especially technical inconsistencies), and the huge arse retcons (Story-wise and technological) that Reach is causing. But otherwise fun games[/QUOTE] Care to explain these "inconsistencies" with the story. Im not to sharp on my Halo Universe lore, but from what i gathered from books and official "Bungie documentation", the story is pretty well put together. and.... technical? you do know halo is set like 500 years in the future right?

It's not bandwagon, and it's not fitting in. The developers got a bit too comfortable with both their salaries and the amount of love they were still getting from Halo:CE. This caused them to provide less for the actual players and more for themselves.

[QUOTE=antme;23345907]your not gonna get flamed. Facepunch is full of bandwagon-ers, so if they say "HALO 3 is shit", they are just trying to fit in. Unless if they truly dislike it, which i doubt is the case [editline]03:43AM[/editline] Care to explain these "inconsistencies" with the story. Im not to sharp on my Halo Universe lore, but from what i gathered from books and official "Bungie documentation", the story is pretty well put together. and.... technical? you do know halo is set like 500 years in the future right?[/QUOTE] Okay, the fact that Reach is invalidating their own canon is a huge inconsistency and then let's look at the shielding. You do know that in technology it's easier to build bigger, right? Because it's very hard to miniaturise power plants to the sizes needed to provide shielding for a human, but this was handwaived so that the Spartans could be utter Mary Sue characters, despite the fact it would have made a hundred thousand times more sense to shield their ships before some bullshit super soldier who wouldn't realistically contribute much of a difference in an interstellar war (But ohoes, some how he does! Yay bad writing!). And now Reach is going back and going "well, actually, we got shielded fighters now too!" (Despite the fact they didn't at that point, and they still haven't shielded their caps, which would be logically and realistically easier if you had the capacity to create such technology)

[QUOTE=Craigewan;23346542]Okay, the fact that Reach is invalidating their own canon is a huge inconsistency and then let's look at the shielding. You do know that in technology it's easier to build bigger, right? Because it's very hard to miniaturise power plants to the sizes needed to provide shielding for a human, but this was handwaived so that the Spartans could be utter Mary Sue characters, despite the fact it would have made a hundred thousand times more sense to shield their ships before some bullshit super soldier who wouldn't realistically contribute much of a difference in an interstellar war (But ohoes, some how he does! Yay bad writing!). And now Reach is going back and going "well, actually, we got shielded fighters now too!" (Despite the fact they didn't at that point, and they still haven't shielded their caps, which would be logically and realistically easier if you had the capacity to create such technology)[/QUOTE] Halo is now for the multiplayer. It started out a game having both, but now the focus is on multiplayer. If you think that it is a bad game because of the writers messing up then you are an :downs:. Seriously.

[QUOTE=D0C H.;23346758]Halo is now for the multiplayer. It started out a game having both, but now the focus is on multiplayer. If you think that it is a bad game because of the writers messing up then you are an :downs:. Seriously.[/QUOTE] When developers make such a fuss about "an epic plot that thickens with every mission, adding intrigue and mystery to every encounter" or some bogus bullshit like that, is it really that downsy to say they didn't follow through?

[QUOTE=D0C H.;23346758]Halo is now for the multiplayer. It started out a game having both, but now the focus is on multiplayer. If you think that it is a bad game because of the writers messing up then you are an :downs:. Seriously.[/QUOTE] Have a friendly. And thanks Sie.

:patriot:

Am I the only one here who buys the Halo Games for the story and not the MP? I read all the books and I'm just dying for more.

I play it because of splitscreen.

I just can't wait til FireFight. Primary Weapon: Rocket Launcher Secondary Weapon: Gravity Hammer Low Gravity 300% speed Invulnerability Low Gravity Grunt Birthday Party 3 friends on [B]Matchmaking[/B] :smug: