Please don't ruin Halo 4 matchmaking like Bungie did with Reach...

[Drakell]

Mezz you were doing fine post wise until you used the "babe" reference. It is condescending and an inappropriate comment towards a female member in the manner you used it. I don't expect to see it or anything like that again.

 

Wait are you serious? You can't say babe on the forums? The guy even apologized for it. Heaven forbid someone say something that is truly insulting on these forums. Can already tell this isn't going to be a place for debate if posts get shut down that quickly for inappropriateness when people disagree.

[Absolute Dog]

Wait are you serious? You can't say babe on the forums? The guy even apologized for it. Heaven forbid someone say something that is truly insulting on these forums. Can already tell this isn't going to be a place for debate if posts get shut down that quickly for inappropriateness when people disagree.

Drakell, when I need your advice, I will ask for it. First off, we were posting at the same time. Second, he did apologize because he realized it was inappropriate. Third, if you find it truly necessary to insult fellow members in order for you to debate, then you can go to B.net or some other forum, period.

[MACHINEGUN DRO]

I know alot of u ppl disagreeing and saying that armor abilities are good in some cases it was but in some not to me halo 3 took more skill than reach did simply because u only had ur granaids and ur Br not armor lock or a jet pack it was effective but in 3 u ether won or lost a Br battle simple as that and they need to go back to the original ranking system 1-50 because to me it kinda seemed like I was playing call of duty they just need to get away from that and go back to the way it was

[Tephnos]

Alright, here's my opinion.

 

I'm a veteran Halo player, with multiple 50s in Halo 3, playing for most of the time that the game was active. I think I can speak for a few of the issues, from a competitive standpoint.

 

First of all, adding more gameplay mechanics does not necessarily devalue skill. However, when it is not done right it does indeed ruin all skill; and this is what happened with Reach.

 

Let's go over a few of the AA for an example. First of all, sprint. It's not necesarily bad; and it's the only AA I used for that reason. However, when in the earlier games you were in a BR fight and were going to lose, you could run away with your head down and give yourself time to get away. If the guy chased you, you could plan ahead and get the jump on him, killing him. This is tactical, and skill. In Reach? You try to run away, the guy sprints you down and the entire concept of getting away in any meaningful way is just thrown out the window. It's not good. Armour Lock? Don't even get me started on that. Press X for invincibility is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Got stuck? No worries! Vehicle going to splatter you? No worries! About to die? No worries!. it's probably the worst AA for the simple fact that you can avoid a ton of situations where you *SHOULD* have died. What's the damn point? Plus, when the person goes into AA all the time, it slows gameplay down dramatically. One of the biggest problems with reach was how agonizingly slow the gameplay was comapred to the rest of the series. Spartans ran slower, didn't jump as high, etc. With grenades being like mini nukes in this game it made dodging them near impossible compared to the earlier games, and strafing in DMR battles (along with ghandi hopping) is nearly useless simply because you just aren't fast enough for it to be worthwhile anymore. The pacing of a game is one of the biggest reasons that makes it very competitive and skillful. The most fun type of competitive games are the ones that are very fast paced, with no slow breaks. The early Halo games, especially 1 and 2, did this perfectly, and it is why they were very, very popular. Know why DOOM takes more skill than battlefield 3? The pacing of DOOM is much, much, much faster.

 

As for bloom? Stupid idea. The very idea of it slows down the gameplay further, and the fact the shots can go anywhere within the circle introduces a random element to the game, making it less skillful. That is a simple fact that cannot be argued. Two people enter a DMR fight. One times his shots perfectly. The other spams. The spammer has a chance of winning. It's low, but it's THERE, and it happens to players. That is the kind of crap that people cannot stand.

 

So yes, classes and AAs, along with slower gameplay mechancis and bloom, really did kill Reach. A lot of people said "you will learn to deal with them". What happened? A majority of the population got tired of the crap, even most of the non competitive players, and just switched to other games.

 

As for Halo 4? I looked at the multiplayer and felt sick. I'm very worried. I've also heard that 343i are planning a COD type upgrade system? Can anyone shed light on that? That single sentence, if true, has already killed Halo 4 for me.

 

I have no idea why they just can't leave things that *work* alone.

[Pope 138]

Hey man even if you feel that Armor Abilities ruined reach why take it out completely? You don't have to play in playlists that use those abilities. Why not suggest that there should be better playlist options in Halo 4 matchmaking instead of just addressing what seems to be the impossible, even if they don't keep every armor ability something is to be gained from Reach's "mistakes".

 

I think one of the biggest problems with Reach is how fragmented the MP community has become. The variety of play styles is out of control (TU or no TU? AA's or no AA's? Bloom or Zero Bloom? etc...). Sure H3 had a lot of playlists but it didn't seem like there were several different versions of the same game. That's why I'm hoping 343 is getting back to basics with H4. I didn't mind AA's in Reach, I just want 343 to have some balls and say "This is the game we made, love it or lump it." When the took over Reach they tried to make everyone happy which is extremely naive. People will either adapt or move on, 343 will just have to be patient and ride out the criticisms. It's what Bungie had to do with H2 and H3. I think 343 is great but still a little green. Eager to prove themselves.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is AA's are just another feature of Reach that polarized the Halo community. The closer this game is to H3 the more successful it will be imo.

[CandiBunni]

As for Halo 4? I looked at the multiplayer and felt sick. I'm very worried. I've also heard that 343i are planning a COD type upgrade system? Can anyone shed light on that? That single sentence, if true, has already killed Halo 4 for me.

 

I have no idea why they just can't leave things that *work* alone.

 

Why did you feel sick? What was so bad about it? There was no apparent bloom, the battle rifle was back(as many people whined and begged for), there is no health system, and the only thing I saw there that people could really complain about is sprinting. The pace of the game looked faster and more action packed. That's it. How did anything you saw there make you sick?

 

As for the upgrade system: They have said time and time and time again that it won't be how Call of Duty handles it. That they're not simply going to take COD's system and put it into a Halo setting. They've said they're going to make it fit into Halo and work how you might expect it to in Halo. That's it. They've given no further details on it, and before you bring it up, I'm pretty sure Frank denied any sort of "perk" system that anyone was talking about.

[Tephnos]

Why did you feel sick? What was so bad about it? There was no apparent bloom, the battle rifle was back(as many people whined and begged for), there is no health system, and the only thing I saw there that people could really complain about is sprinting. The pace of the game looked faster and more action packed. That's it. How did anything you saw there make you sick?

 

As for the upgrade system: They have said time and time and time again that it won't be how Call of Duty handles it. That they're not simply going to take COD's system and put it into a Halo setting. They've said they're going to make it fit into Halo and work how you might expect it to in Halo. That's it. They've given no further details on it, and before you bring it up, I'm pretty sure Frank denied any sort of "perk" system that anyone was talking about.

 

Why did I feel sick?

 

Because I love Halo, and I was so disappointed with Reach that I outright pretty much quit gaming, hoping Halo 4 would salvage it. The videos I've seen give me a very 'reach' feel about the game. The sprint hinted at AAs. There was talk of loadouts. The upgrades, etc. I can not see anything good coming out of that, "working with how halo plays" or not. You can not fault me for being worried about it, and I do hope further announcements quell those doubts. Until then, yes, I will continue to be concerned.

 

All I want is a multiplayer experience that is very balanced, very competitive, and limits the bullcrap to a bare minimum. That is why I played Halo 3 for so long and never got bored of it. That's all I want. And no, it can't be an optional "play customs" thing. If they don't base Halo 4 off the same kind of system, people will jump into it, get tired of it, and play the next best thing. They want a balanced and competitive system that can sustain a huge population like Halo 2 and 3 did.

[CandiBunni]

Why did I feel sick?

 

Because I love Halo, and I was so disappointed with Reach that I outright pretty much quit gaming, hoping Halo 4 would salvage it. The videos I've seen give me a very 'reach' feel about the game. The sprint hinted at AAs. There was talk of loadouts. The upgrades, etc. I can not see anything good coming out of that, "working with how halo plays" or not. You can not fault me for being worried about it, and I do hope further announcements quell those doubts. Until then, yes, I will continue to be concerned.

 

All I want is a multiplayer experience that is very balanced, very competitive, and limits the bullcrap to a bare minimum. That is why I played Halo 3 for so long and never got bored of it. That's all I want. And no, it can't be an optional "play customs" thing. If they don't base Halo 4 off the same kind of system, people will jump into it, get tired of it, and play the next best thing. They want a balanced and competitive system that can sustain a huge population like Halo 2 and 3 did.

 

If you'll notice, there was no icon on the HUD to indicate that sprinting was an AA. If anything, it could simply be an ability that everyone has, much like in other FPSs. Besides, even if AAs were in Halo 4, that doesn't mean they would function the same way, nor does it mean they would be the same abilities. We've seen nothing or heard nothing on the loadouts/classes that they're implementing, so I think it's best to hold off any judgement until you actually get some detailed information on that subject. The same goes for the "upgrades". They've said that the features they're adding won't function just like they do in other games, that they're not simply taking an idea that one game does and just shoehorning it into Halo 4. They've said Halo 4 is going to be very fast paced, if not the fastest paced Halo game to date. They have also said that the Halo feel, or perhaps the classic Halo feel (I can't remember which) is still present in Halo 4, it's just been expanded upon. Have some faith, jeez.

 

The only thing I noticed that might give someone a "Reach" feel was perhaps the sprinting, but that's it. Everything else seemed to be more like Halo 3 to me. It seemed fast paced, the BR was back, and you didn't see people chucking all of their grenades around.

[Lᴜᴋᴇ]

Level the playing field give everyone a battle rifle and let skill determine the outcome of the game.

SWAT? MLG? What you are looking for is in halo. If you want simplicity go play packman. Do you think Halo is simple? You are wrong. Nothing in Halo is simply. Are you saying you think real life games like football and cricket aren't competitive, because everyone is different. Are you saying that a maths exam isn't competitive, because everyone has different levels of intelligence?

[Tephnos]

If you'll notice, there was no icon on the HUD to indicate that sprinting was an AA. If anything, it could simply be an ability that everyone has, much like in other FPSs. Besides, even if AAs were in Halo 4, that doesn't mean they would function the same way, nor does it mean they would be the same abilities. We've seen nothing or heard nothing on the loadouts/classes that they're implementing, so I think it's best to hold off any judgement until you actually get some detailed information on that subject. The same goes for the "upgrades". They've said that the features they're adding won't function just like they do in other games, that they're not simply taking an idea that one game does and just shoehorning it into Halo 4. They've said Halo 4 is going to be very fast paced, if not the fastest paced Halo game to date. They have also said that the Halo feel, or perhaps the classic Halo feel (I can't remember which) is still present in Halo 4, it's just been expanded upon. Have some faith, jeez.

 

The only thing I noticed that might give someone a "Reach" feel was perhaps the sprinting, but that's it. Everything else seemed to be more like Halo 3 to me. It seemed fast paced, the BR was back, and you didn't see people chucking all of their grenades around.

 

Having faith is hard when it was just disappointment after disappointment with bungie. There is no way I'll hype myself up for this game. I'll just hope they do whats best.

[Zamio]

Sorry babe but I still believe your dead wrong. When you add more things to the game you take out equality, which leads to advantages and disadvantages not by skill rather by what you have, this isn't the halo I know and love. Level the playing field give everyone a battle rifle and let skill determine the outcome of the game. Make it so what matters most in the game is not what you have but what you can do with it.

 

You really dont know what your saying do you? Adding more things requires you to change your tactics and requires skill. Advantages? In Halo 3, get a Tank and you win. In Halo Reach, You have a Tank? ARMOUR LOCK.

[haloman 2]

I don't care who likes armor abilities or not I just want 2 of them in halo 4. They are the armor lock and drop shield and I want new things like armor abilities.

[Carts]

If 343i wants to be safe about perks/classes, they should avoid anything that delays the time for a kill at all cost. Such things are never well recieved by the community in any game (Juggernaught in CoD, Armor Lock in Reach).

[Twinreaper]

just a heads up.to everyone.....ill be posting some things up to.counter the rather ridiculous comments I saw when browsing mobile at work. Look for the post later.

[Twinreaper]

First off I would just like to say that the title for the thread is ridiculous! In order for Bungie to have ruined Multiplayer in Reach, they would have had to let down or completely throw out the window, anything they showed or released prior to the game release. from the beginning every player knew what Reach was going to be...so stop crying about that one!

 

Well where do I start with this post. The only way to keep a game competitive is to keep it simple, by adding different classes you are limiting equality thus making it harder to develop skill when each player doesn't start out the same. You are also potentialy limiting what each player can do in terms of individually impacting the game when you get too specific making each class so diverse from one another. It wasn't good for Reach and it won't be good for Halo 4, I am aware there are people that enjoy Reach thats obvious, but what I also think was obvious is that there were alot of disappointed people.

 

I understand how your competative nature would lead you to this assumption, but you are wrong. Playing a game that invloves many different aspects and available play styles, only neccessatates your need to have a higher skill level in order to dominate the competition. Calling Loadouts classes is not right either. Classes implies that you are limited to it, by rank or selection. Loadouts are not restrictive and can be changed out upon respawn.

 

Plz I'm beging you not to put armor abilities it mestup halo reach it still was a good game I think it would be better with out armor abilities like the no sprint playlist in mlg so just keep halo 4 like halo 3 it had overall better ratings than reach did so do the world a favor and not put armor abilities thank you

 

Armor abilities did not hurt reach. Perhaps before you start to blame game mechanics for a games failing populations, you should do your homework first. Halo 3 has overhyped and flawed, yet it did fairly well for quite a while. It did not do well because they got things "right" as you would say, but because at the time Halo 3 released, it had no competition to detract players from it. Go ahead and look at the lineup of titles coming out around the same time or shortly after it....there is not one title in there that had anything worth playing over Halo 3. With Reach, we had Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare 3 just to name a few. All these games hurt Reach very much. That my friend is a fact, not an opinion.

 

I know alot of u ppl disagreeing and saying that armor abilities are good in some cases it was but in some not to me halo 3 took more skill than reach did simply because u only had ur granaids and ur Br not armor lock or a jet pack it was effective but in 3 u ether won or lost a Br battle simple as that and they need to go back to the original ranking system 1-50 because to me it kinda seemed like I was playing call of duty they just need to get away from that and go back to the way it was

 

I get where you are going with this, but your basis for this is soley your opinion based on YOUR experience. My experience is quite the opposite. In Halo 3 I owned easily with the BR alone and a good old fashion SMG/PRifle combo. In Reach, I get owned constantly. My skill level in reach compared to H3 sucks. I just didn't have the ability to evolve my skill to adapt to Reach's gameplay. Does that make Reach less skilled than H3? No it doesn't. It simply means that I am less skilled in Reach due to my own shortcomings. It's all a matter or personal preferrence and experience.

 

Alright, here's my opinion.

 

I'm a veteran Halo player, with multiple 50s in Halo 3, playing for most of the time that the game was active. I think I can speak for a few of the issues, from a competitive standpoint.

 

First of all, adding more gameplay mechanics does not necessarily devalue skill. However, when it is not done right it does indeed ruin all skill; and this is what happened with Reach.

 

Let's go over a few of the AA for an example. First of all, sprint. It's not necesarily bad; and it's the only AA I used for that reason. However, when in the earlier games you were in a BR fight and were going to lose, you could run away with your head down and give yourself time to get away. If the guy chased you, you could plan ahead and get the jump on him, killing him. This is tactical, and skill. In Reach? You try to run away, the guy sprints you down and the entire concept of getting away in any meaningful way is just thrown out the window. It's not good. Armour Lock? Don't even get me started on that. Press X for invincibility is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Got stuck? No worries! Vehicle going to splatter you? No worries! About to die? No worries!. it's probably the worst AA for the simple fact that you can avoid a ton of situations where you *SHOULD* have died. What's the damn point? Plus, when the person goes into AA all the time, it slows gameplay down dramatically. One of the biggest problems with reach was how agonizingly slow the gameplay was comapred to the rest of the series. Spartans ran slower, didn't jump as high, etc. With grenades being like mini nukes in this game it made dodging them near impossible compared to the earlier games, and strafing in DMR battles (along with ghandi hopping) is nearly useless simply because you just aren't fast enough for it to be worthwhile anymore. The pacing of a game is one of the biggest reasons that makes it very competitive and skillful. The most fun type of competitive games are the ones that are very fast paced, with no slow breaks. The early Halo games, especially 1 and 2, did this perfectly, and it is why they were very, very popular. Know why DOOM takes more skill than battlefield 3? The pacing of DOOM is much, much, much faster.

 

As for bloom? Stupid idea. The very idea of it slows down the gameplay further, and the fact the shots can go anywhere within the circle introduces a random element to the game, making it less skillful. That is a simple fact that cannot be argued. Two people enter a DMR fight. One times his shots perfectly. The other spams. The spammer has a chance of winning. It's low, but it's THERE, and it happens to players. That is the kind of crap that people cannot stand.

 

So yes, classes and AAs, along with slower gameplay mechanics and bloom, really did kill Reach. A lot of people said "you will learn to deal with them". What happened? A majority of the population got tired of the crap, even most of the non competitive players, and just switched to other games.

 

As for Halo 4? I looked at the multiplayer and felt sick. I'm very worried. I've also heard that 343i are planning a COD type upgrade system? Can anyone shed light on that? That single sentence, if true, has already killed Halo 4 for me.

 

I have no idea why they just can't leave things that *work* alone.

 

First off, your rank or multiple accounts with rank do not dictate anything you say to be fact at all. get off your high fricken horse with that noise.

 

Second, there was no devaluing of skill in Reach. If you suck under certain circumstances or situations that is your own fault and shortcoming for not being able to adapt properly to a new set of MM guidelines and mechanics. Quit rage crying about something you can't overcome, and stop blaming the devs for it.

 

Third, how ridiculous is your bloom comment. Example time!! Halo 1 had the magnum. The magnum under constant fire would spread shots like a shotgun all over the place. Fact!!! The magnum in Halo 1 is the only weapon to date to have it's firing spread extend past the reticule in which the shots are supposed to be contained to. In my 10 years of playing Halo Combat Evolved, I have never once heard anyone ***** or moan about the bloom on the pistol. And to date, everyone hands down still says Halo 1 is the King of them All!!! Well, you see where this is going......get off the whole bloom thing and just accept that it is there and has always been there. And before you try to start going off about how it's different...IT IS NOT!!! I have explained all this before in great detail with pulled data values from the weapons in every Halo title for everyone to see.

 

As for the comments about AA's...get over it. You know damn well that people have loadouts and every time you engage someone, you take the chance of having it turned back on you. Where is all this skill you supposedly have then? Obviously it isn't in MM going against players with base loadouts.

 

 

Aside from this, I saw some ridiculous comment somewhere about someone being on the ground and someone else being 25 feet in the air. What a horrible way to describe the advantage you think the AA's give you. Apply this logic to your theory my friends......

 

If the person above you is 25 feet up in the air, how does he have the advantage in a whole of the situations. His perspective is skewed by his distance and vantage point, making him vulnerable to teammates of yours, and vulnerable due to his lack of perspective on you. When he finally comes down upon you, you could be holding a sword for all he knows, or even maybe a shotgun, or even have armor lock or etc.... you see where I am going with this. Having skill means you can adapt and adjust to any situation using a wide variety of tactics, weapons and natural environment to combat an enemy and achieve victory. From what I see around here...there is obviously a great deal of skill lacking by the way you all try to pass off the game as the reason why you suck or why things are unfair in the end.

[Drakell]

First off I would just like to say that the title for the thread is ridiculous! In order for Bungie to have ruined Multiplayer in Reach, they would have had to let down or completely throw out the window, anything they showed or released prior to the game release. from the beginning every player knew what Reach was going to be...so stop crying about that one!

 

 

 

I understand how your competative nature would lead you to this assumption, but you are wrong. Playing a game that invloves many different aspects and available play styles, only neccessatates your need to have a higher skill level in order to dominate the competition. Calling Loadouts classes is not right either. Classes implies that you are limited to it, by rank or selection. Loadouts are not restrictive and can be changed out upon respawn.

 

 

 

Armor abilities did not hurt reach. Perhaps before you start to blame game mechanics for a games failing populations, you should do your homework first. Halo 3 has overhyped and flawed, yet it did fairly well for quite a while. It did not do well because they got things "right" as you would say, but because at the time Halo 3 released, it had no competition to detract players from it. Go ahead and look at the lineup of titles coming out around the same time or shortly after it....there is not one title in there that had anything worth playing over Halo 3. With Reach, we had Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare 3 just to name a few. All these games hurt Reach very much. That my friend is a fact, not an opinion.

 

 

 

I get where you are going with this, but your basis for this is soley your opinion based on YOUR experience. My experience is quite the opposite. In Halo 3 I owned easily with the BR alone and a good old fashion SMG/PRifle combo. In Reach, I get owned constantly. My skill level in reach compared to H3 sucks. I just didn't have the ability to evolve my skill to adapt to Reach's gameplay. Does that make Reach less skilled than H3? No it doesn't. It simply means that I am less skilled in Reach due to my own shortcomings. It's all a matter or personal preferrence and experience.

 

 

 

First off, your rank or multiple accounts with rank do not dictate anything you say to be fact at all. get off your high fricken horse with that noise.

 

Second, there was no devaluing of skill in Reach. If you suck under certain circumstances or situations that is your own fault and shortcoming for not being able to adapt properly to a new set of MM guidelines and mechanics. Quit rage crying about something you can't overcome, and stop blaming the devs for it.

 

Third, how ridiculous is your bloom comment. Example time!! Halo 1 had the magnum. The magnum under constant fire would spread shots like a shotgun all over the place. Fact!!! The magnum in Halo 1 is the only weapon to date to have it's firing spread extend past the reticule in which the shots are supposed to be contained to. In my 10 years of playing Halo Combat Evolved, I have never once heard anyone ***** or moan about the bloom on the pistol. And to date, everyone hands down still says Halo 1 is the King of them All!!! Well, you see where this is going......get off the whole bloom thing and just accept that it is there and has always been there. And before you try to start going off about how it's different...IT IS NOT!!! I have explained all this before in great detail with pulled data values from the weapons in every Halo title for everyone to see.

 

As for the comments about AA's...get over it. You know damn well that people have loadouts and every time you engage someone, you take the chance of having it turned back on you. Where is all this skill you supposedly have then? Obviously it isn't in MM going against players with base loadouts.

 

 

Aside from this, I saw some ridiculous comment somewhere about someone being on the ground and someone else being 25 feet in the air. What a horrible way to describe the advantage you think the AA's give you. Apply this logic to your theory my friends......

 

If the person above you is 25 feet up in the air, how does he have the advantage in a whole of the situations. His perspective is skewed by his distance and vantage point, making him vulnerable to teammates of yours, and vulnerable due to his lack of perspective on you. When he finally comes down upon you, you could be holding a sword for all he knows, or even maybe a shotgun, or even have armor lock or etc.... you see where I am going with this. Having skill means you can adapt and adjust to any situation using a wide variety of tactics, weapons and natural environment to combat an enemy and achieve victory. From what I see around here...there is obviously a great deal of skill lacking by the way you all try to pass off the game as the reason why you suck or why things are unfair in the end.

 

Well your sir seem to have all answers don't you? Let me start off by saying no one is higher on a horse right now than you. The guy was claiming he had multiple 50s because he wanted to speak from a competitive standpoint. He even states this so that there is no confusion, but you somehow missed this in the first line of his post.

 

You can argue all you want about how other games affected Reach's release, and you're right! However, this doesn't mean that it didn't have dramatic shortcomings. Look at how low it has sunken as far as MLG is concerned. Also not an opinion.

[Tephnos]

Ah yes, all that wall of text was basically: Get over it.

 

Nice one, you're saying what the casuals have said since the game came out. Look at the numbers for once?

 

Oh, rank DOES mean something. It means I play a higher tier of skill than you do. That's fact. Sorry for being on a 'high' horse just because I play more competitively.

[Ash]

First off I would just like to say that the title for the thread is ridiculous! In order for Bungie to have ruined Multiplayer in Reach, they would have had to let down or completely throw out the window, anything they showed or released prior to the game release. from the beginning every player knew what Reach was going to be...so stop crying about that one!

 

 

 

I understand how your competative nature would lead you to this assumption, but you are wrong. Playing a game that invloves many different aspects and available play styles, only neccessatates your need to have a higher skill level in order to dominate the competition. Calling Loadouts classes is not right either. Classes implies that you are limited to it, by rank or selection. Loadouts are not restrictive and can be changed out upon respawn.

 

 

 

Armor abilities did not hurt reach. Perhaps before you start to blame game mechanics for a games failing populations, you should do your homework first. Halo 3 has overhyped and flawed, yet it did fairly well for quite a while. It did not do well because they got things "right" as you would say, but because at the time Halo 3 released, it had no competition to detract players from it. Go ahead and look at the lineup of titles coming out around the same time or shortly after it....there is not one title in there that had anything worth playing over Halo 3. With Reach, we had Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare 3 just to name a few. All these games hurt Reach very much. That my friend is a fact, not an opinion.

 

 

 

I get where you are going with this, but your basis for this is soley your opinion based on YOUR experience. My experience is quite the opposite. In Halo 3 I owned easily with the BR alone and a good old fashion SMG/PRifle combo. In Reach, I get owned constantly. My skill level in reach compared to H3 sucks. I just didn't have the ability to evolve my skill to adapt to Reach's gameplay. Does that make Reach less skilled than H3? No it doesn't. It simply means that I am less skilled in Reach due to my own shortcomings. It's all a matter or personal preferrence and experience.

 

 

 

First off, your rank or multiple accounts with rank do not dictate anything you say to be fact at all. get off your high fricken horse with that noise.

 

Second, there was no devaluing of skill in Reach. If you suck under certain circumstances or situations that is your own fault and shortcoming for not being able to adapt properly to a new set of MM guidelines and mechanics. Quit rage crying about something you can't overcome, and stop blaming the devs for it.

 

Third, how ridiculous is your bloom comment. Example time!! Halo 1 had the magnum. The magnum under constant fire would spread shots like a shotgun all over the place. Fact!!! The magnum in Halo 1 is the only weapon to date to have it's firing spread extend past the reticule in which the shots are supposed to be contained to. In my 10 years of playing Halo Combat Evolved, I have never once heard anyone ***** or moan about the bloom on the pistol. And to date, everyone hands down still says Halo 1 is the King of them All!!! Well, you see where this is going......get off the whole bloom thing and just accept that it is there and has always been there. And before you try to start going off about how it's different...IT IS NOT!!! I have explained all this before in great detail with pulled data values from the weapons in every Halo title for everyone to see.

 

As for the comments about AA's...get over it. You know damn well that people have loadouts and every time you engage someone, you take the chance of having it turned back on you. Where is all this skill you supposedly have then? Obviously it isn't in MM going against players with base loadouts.

 

 

Aside from this, I saw some ridiculous comment somewhere about someone being on the ground and someone else being 25 feet in the air. What a horrible way to describe the advantage you think the AA's give you. Apply this logic to your theory my friends......

 

If the person above you is 25 feet up in the air, how does he have the advantage in a whole of the situations. His perspective is skewed by his distance and vantage point, making him vulnerable to teammates of yours, and vulnerable due to his lack of perspective on you. When he finally comes down upon you, you could be holding a sword for all he knows, or even maybe a shotgun, or even have armor lock or etc.... you see where I am going with this. Having skill means you can adapt and adjust to any situation using a wide variety of tactics, weapons and natural environment to combat an enemy and achieve victory. From what I see around here...there is obviously a great deal of skill lacking by the way you all try to pass off the game as the reason why you suck or why things are unfair in the end.

 

I agree completely, just because they add something to a game doesn't mean the game is "ruined", it gives the game new strats to use. If you can't adapt to partially changed gameplay, then you obviously don't have much skill.

[Tephnos]

I'm not really prepared to argue this further. Redefine skill all you want, make your own made up version, whatever.

 

The fact is, the Reach population is abysmal. Try to justify the gameplay mechanics all you want; the fact remains that there is a serious problem with the Reach gameplay that turned a vast majority of the population away.

 

 

By the way... did I ever say that I get owned in Reach? No; I didn't. There YOU go, putting words in MY mouth, that I never even said. I still destroy in Reach, the game is a piece of cake compared to Halo 3. Does that mean I have to like it? No, I don't.

[OmegaWeapon]

i just made an account on here to comment on this i heard there putting perks in halo if this happens i can promise you i'm not buying this game the reason i like halo is its not call of duty and you will lose most of your halo fan base. if its anything like reach halo is dead. if its like call halo is dead. cuz we all know how well MW3 is doing right now..... terrible..... bring it back to h2!!! h3 at least or u will have just bought a dead franchise i had hope 343 would do halo justice but from what its sounding like is there just trying to get the COD fan base rather then caring what the real halo players want and all i ask of 343 is please PLEASE DON'T KILL HALO

[Mezz]

I'm not really prepared to argue this further. Redefine skill all you want, make your own made up version, whatever.

 

The fact is, the Reach population is abysmal. Try to justify the gameplay mechanics all you want; the fact remains that there is a serious problem with the Reach gameplay that turned a vast majority of the population away.

 

 

By the way... did I ever say that I get owned in Reach? No; I didn't. There YOU go, putting words in MY mouth, that I never even said. I still destroy in Reach, the game is a piece of cake compared to Halo 3. Does that mean I have to like it? No, I don't.

 

i agree with everything he says, Reach's matchmaking was horrible compared to h2 and h3, i can only hope h4 is more like h2 & h3 and less like reach....

 

i just made an account on here to comment on this i heard there putting perks in halo if this happens i can promise you i'm not buying this game the reason i like halo is its not call of duty and you will lose most of your halo fan base. if its anything like reach halo is dead. if its like call halo is dead. cuz we all know how well MW3 is doing right now..... terrible..... bring it back to h2!!! h3 at least or u will have just bought a dead franchise i had hope 343 would do halo justice but from what its sounding like is there just trying to get the COD fan base rather then caring what the real halo players want and all i ask of 343 is please PLEASE DON'T KILL HALO

 

thank you appreciate your comment

[Pavlas72]

Reach has the best multiplayer of any halo game because of commendations and credits

[Twinreaper]

It seems I struck a nerve with the guys around here with my post...why I am not suprised. You can bash me and my post all you want, but in the end, it is all fact based. You have nothing to argue because you cannot properly counter anything I said. I have no quam with you personally, just some of the things I have found floating around the thread. I am sorry if you took it personally.

 

I do not live here on a high horse. Fact is, I am a well respected and long time member of this community and Halo in general. I come in here to educate people on things they get wrong and help people out when they need it. You can clearly see this if you look around at my favor rating and the many helpful posts I have made.

 

I conscider this nothing more than just a heated and well argued debate and nothing more. But if you wish to keep bashing on me or whatever, then hey more power to you, and enjoy. I won't stop you or bother you guys again. But in the off chance you ever need help understanding anything mechanic or engine code wise, please feel free to hit me up anytime.

[Tephnos]

It seems I struck a nerve with the guys around here with my post...why I am not suprised. You can bash me and my post all you want, but in the end, it is all fact based. You have nothing to argue because you cannot properly counter anything I said. I have no quam with you personally, just some of the things I have found floating around the thread. I am sorry if you took it personally.

 

I do not live here on a high horse. Fact is, I am a well respected and long time member of this community and Halo in general. I come in here to educate people on things they get wrong and help people out when they need it. You can clearly see this if you look around at my favor rating and the many helpful posts I have made.

 

I conscider this nothing more than just a heated and well argued debate and nothing more. But if you wish to keep bashing on me or whatever, then hey more power to you, and enjoy. I won't stop you or bother you guys again. But in the off chance you ever need help understanding anything mechanic or engine code wise, please feel free to hit me up anytime.

 

How many times do I have to say it? No one cares about the 'facts' behind what you're saying. The FACT is, the MAJORITY of the population do not care for these game mechanics, and it is why Reach is a dead horse compared to Halo 3.

 

And yes, you did strike a nerve with me by telling me I was on a high horse. Come off it. I'm trying to be nice, but I'll just say it then: I'm better than you; I know what skill is. I know what does and doesn't work in a competitive environment because I experience it. You obviously don't. The way you define what skill is, is pretty much laughable. With the way I've seen some arguments on this forum, you could have a weapon that homes in on heads, never runs out of ammo, and never misses, and you guys would say "Well the more skillful team would have acquired that weapon and therefore shows skill!". An extreme example, but it's basically what you're saying. Stop trying to redefine what skill is when you don't even play competitively. I think MLG has a better idea of what balanced skill is than you do.

 

Personally, I don't care to counter your arguments anymore. Fact is, Reach population is abysmal, the general player laughs at Halo Reach, and something needs to be done.

[Twinreaper]

Yeah I do suck at MM in Reach. But you being better than me has nothing to do with real life or anything for that matter. I have neither the time or means to even try to game competitively. Hey man, I respect your MLG standpoint and I have no doubt you have skills, I never called that into question. I have not tried in any way to redefine skill as you stated, I was simply illustrating ways you can look at events differently. One thing I do find common among competitive types, is how quick they are to pass off blame as "luck" or "broken mechanics" when they miss a shot or lose a battle they feel they should have won. Now I am in no way saying that is you, but if you go around forums for all Halo communities, you see this is true. Actually I think you make some good points in your posts and for the most part you truly seem to understand how to translate what happens in game fairly well.

 

For the most part, because of our difference in play style and type, I think we should just "Agree to Disagree" on the skill and mechanic issues. I like debating with you on these issues and I hope we can go on from here and do it again sometime. We both seem to bring in some great points and issues and it would be really beneficial to this community if we could continue to do so. Cheers mate!