Very much agree with everything. Halo 3 had that certain feeling, "spark", that reach lacks. It just isn't fun anymore. I can see Black Ops taking over the way MW2 did very easily.
I don't know about that. The maps really aren't that bad. I actually enjoy the Cage and Asylum. Hemorrhage is great when you aren't being spawn killed by vehicles and Paradiso is fun when people don't camp no the top of the mountain (I suggest put a Soft kill boundary up there, and block the paths up there). Pinnacle, on the other hand, is bad. That is really the only map I can't stand to play (unless it FFA or multi-team).
Asylum is the best Slayer map in the game imo, maybe I'm biased since Countdown has no Sniper , but either way they're a close 1-2 with little else to touch them. Boardwalk is a hella fun but the spawning is just too stupid at times to label it really solid. I also think that Asylum plays both CTF and Stockpile really well, love that map to bits, such a simple design but the angles you can get with precision weapons are just beautiful. Pinnacle makes me want to claw my own eyes out, sorry but 4v4 Slayer on it is a joke. No gametype can save that map from the atrocious spawning and dull, dull battles over main tower. Banshee point is the one slightly redeeming feature of the design, but you rarely spawn there which is just stupid, Bungie apparently thinking that spawning you basically in enemy LoS on top mid is far preferable. Agreed with tsb, Cliffhanger is painful for SWAT, just like every other gametype imo. I have fun with Paradiso on Invasion Slayer, BTB etc, but tbh I can't call it a great design, just some nice geometry to roam around on and too big to really play that badly in terms of really poor design choices. Still, overall a thumbs up I'd say. Agreed that The Cage is really horrible, though still not on the level of Cliffhanger or the dreaded Pinnacle. I hate so much to come off like a mindless Bungie basher with an overblown sense of entitlement, but it just staggers and, tbh, genuinely frustrates me how their Forge variants seem to turn out. Cliffhanger is a prime example, being that it's literally just 3 incredibly basic and boring structures spaced evenly in a line along the centre of The Quarry. You can call such designs 'basic but solid' till the cows come home, doesn't make it so, and it's far from solid. Bungie always seem to focus on a proper spawn system over an in depth layout with Forge maps, perhaps since spawning is the thing that the community gets right (or even appreciates the importance of) least often for the most part. Though what amazes me with Cliffhanger and Pinnacle in particular is that the spawning is just god-awful. I know the whole game has issues about seemingly overweighted team spawning, often causing enemies to spawn right in front of me (I'm looking at the balcony on Countdown and much of Boardwalk in particular, especially attacker spawn), but they've really pushed the boat out the simply awful spawns on these two Forge maps. I'm constantly having people spawn right on top of/in front of me along the two sides of Cliffhanger, the open side in particular being really bad, and I've mentioned the problems with Pinnacle already. But even when it's a given (ie. in house variants), the next step of actually putting some effort and imagination in to design still never materialises. It just baffles me how Bungie can come out with my favourite map designs of all time, maps that I truly love and wonder at the refined and precise design that reveals more small but oh so significant little qualities every time I play. But then it comes to Forge, something they've put time and effort in to refining and hyped up a lot, something that certain sectors of the community really care about, and they just seem to give up. It feels like they look at Forge and think 'well you'll never actually get a proper map out of that, so why even bother trying?' Like I said, I don't like coming off as one of those bitter sounding haters, which I don't think I am, since what brings this view about is the sheer contrast between actual fully fledged maps and the tripe that Bungie puts in MM and apparently thinks is better than some of the best and most interesting designs the community has produced in Forge. It's not that I suspect that they're bad at Forge, that simply doesn't make sense, but more that they don't think being really good at is is truly possible, that it's not even really a tool worth trying with. /rant, been wanting to get that out for a while.
alot of people think this, but the truth is, reach takes more skill and to kill people who have this skill is difficult when YOU don't have the skill and you get frusterated and stop playing, online at least, this has happened to 2 of my friends already.... its trajic.
I feel pinnacle should be removed from matchmaking altogether (except perhaps snipers and SWAT), it is the most unbalanced map in the game, and spawning is bad (why even have spawn points top mid?) I think the main problem with making a good SWAT map is to not have any alcoves, because that creates a 1way camp, you can camp corners, but allways be flanked, but when theres an alcove (like the drop sections in countdown) its an almost unstoppable camp spot.
I don't know how they did it, but they turned Ascension into Pinnacle. I loved Ascension so much, and I can't stand Pinnacle at all.
I disagree. Especially with the hype factor. Halo 3 had much more hype with it's merchandise, commercials, Game Fuel (mountain dew drink), etc. This is primarily because it was the last game to feature Master Chief as far as we know. With Reach, I saw it on E3, saw a couple commercials, and that's about it. I also think Halo 3 was the worst of the franchise, but that's just me. As for the single shot weapons, I like it. It involves more interaction than chasing someone and holding down the right trigger. While I still like the automatic weapons as much as I have in the past, I really like the DMR and how it works. As for armor abilities, I don't really mind them at all. While they might be irritating sometimes when they lead to your death (like someone with a jetpack killing you in mid air), but at the same time, they handicap the people using them as much as they give them an advantage. More notably, the jetpack. While they get a birds eye view of the arena, they're also in plain sight. A few shots with the DMR and they're dead. All in all, Reach left me feeling the best out of all the games for the following reasons. Halo Combat Evolved: This was slight dissapointment, not much though. I'd just been enjoying the game so much that I didn't want it to end and wait for a sequel, or even wait to hear if there's going to be a sequel. Halo 2: "Here to finish this fight". Enough said. But at least the multiplayer was fun. Halo 3: The ending... Again, enough said. Especially after beating it on Legendary and seeing the bonus video, I was still annoyed. Multiplayer was meh. I doubt I even have a good 24 hours of gameplay in Matchmaking. Halo ODST: A lot of build up for a lot of nothing. It was a fair game, but not as great as the rest in the series obviously. I'll still play it occasionally though. I was mostly annoyed at the lack of the new weapons. I was rarely able to use them because they ran out of ammo fast, which was a big disappointment. Halo Reach: I knew what was going to happen at the end and I was fine with it. There was no sequel except for Halo, and it just went full circle at that point. I was just happy to know what happened with Reach, and what events lead up to the first Halo game. Multiplayer wise, things are good. Gameplay is great, the daily challenges are a nice bonus, etc. And on the more bias side, I'd always wished the series started with Reach anyways. And now that I got to play through the story, I'm happy with it. And I'm glad they waited until there were better resources to make an awesome game. tl;dr, I disagree.
Rofl LMAFO. Mw2 came out around 2 YEARS after Halo 3. Of course it would take the leaderboards. But the gap between Reach and Black Ops will not be anywhere near comparable to what you are talking about. I'm sure Black Ops will probably have more players, but not in the sense it dominates. It just has a broader appeal to it. But rofl at your "...the way MW2 did very easily."
its tough to say that you need MORE skill then halo 3...IMO i think halo 3 takes more skill, and this is why... first - if you have NO br skills then you will get RAPED! to elaborate on this...once you hit a certain rank in H3 the game gets more intense and frustrating. to me once i got above a 45 you can really see where a MISS br shot will really hurt your chances of winning a 1v1 battle, where as lets say a 20 something rank game you can miss two, three, or even four times and still have a very good chance of winning. (wait, if your in a 20 something rank game...you're prolly getting spammed by AR shots anyway! lol) second - IMO, again i think reach dummy downs its multiplayer because NO MATTER YOU SKILL, you usually have a equal chance at killing some one...ie AA's, rocket bleed, bloom, health packs...all these things will equal out a battle for the most part...and i believe that they (bungie) did this to have a more "fun" factor instead of H3's more "competitive" factor. i hope you guys understand where im trying to get at on this point. More people will play H:R multiplayer b/c they DO NOT have to worry about getting a 50...its more just play a lot and get cool armor! so with all of that said I do enjoy playing Halo: REACH and will continue to play (mostly b/c it is a NEW game) although i think its a meaningless ranking system. therefore when people ask if im good at HALO...i tell them my H3 ranking, i dont tell them i have a billion cR, and some funky helmets! ha. so if im playing to have fun...reach it is, but if i want to crack a monster and get my virtual thighs back in shape from tea bagging....not to mention broken controllers, then HALO 3 it is!!!
Reach is very, very balanced. Everything about it feels calculated. There can be a certain appeal to finding small idiosyncrasies in games and taking advantage of them, then encountering other players who know about them and seeing who can play around with them most effectively. That might be what you're feeling is missing. Or you just might not be used to Reach yet.
People haven't adjusted to bloom yet imo, and by that I mean the more skilled players haven't gotten used to it across the board (in good part through blind resistance to change, but that's a different issue altogether). I maintain that the forgiving nature of bloom towards spammers does reduce the absolute emphasis on skill of the basic precision weapon in the game, but not to the point where all importance is taken away from being good with the DMR. I get screwed over by the luck factor of spamming a reasonable amount, but more often than not I win out because I have a decent shot and focus on good, appropriate pacing for the distance of a situation. Ok, point by point with the main factors you picked out: -AA's: They're different, not necessarily worse, and sprint in particular is a great addition to the skill set of Halo, enhancing what a given player can do if they're good enough with it, not dumbing it down. There are problematic ones, AL and Dropshield in particular, but has everyone already forgotten the Bubble Shield and Regen of H3? People leave these out when discussing competitive H3 for the most part, but don't do Reach the same courtesy, always bringing the Dropshield and AL AAs back in to the discussion. -Rocket bleed: This one just baffles me. Rockets have always had damage bleed in Halo, a direct hit with one has always killed from full shields. Nades have always had bleed too, which is another similar point that I see alot. The reason people complain about this is because they now have bleed in comparison to melee which doesn't in Reach. So, in short, melee has been nerfed (not completely since the advantage of being shots up in a melee battle has gone, <3 75% melee in MLG, but again that's a slightly different issue, overall melee has been nerfed). Melee is one of the least skilful aspects of basic Halo play, it's a case of being in range and just pressing a button. Nerfing melee makes the game more focused on the higher skill attributes overall, so will people stop saying that damage bleed on explosives devalues skill? It's just senseless. -Bloom: Now this is tricky. In theory it should definitively raise skill in all situations since it adds an extra required skill to winning a battle, but the fact is (as I mentioned earlier) that the randomness rewards spamming over pacing to a level that is definitely noticeable. I support those calling for a change to the bloom mechanic, one which means a bullet will never fall at the centre of the reticle when it is blooming, thus meaning a good paced shot (relative to the range in question) will always win over a spammed shot. Without this, as I say, bloom is an imperfect mechanic for the purpose Bungie supposedly designed it, so idk. How much I agree/disagree with you on this point comes down to exactly what you meant: whether the presence of bloom at all reduces skill required to use guns, or whether the way it currently works does so. -Health packs: Gwah? How exactly do these reduce the skill required? They encourage map flow more than rechargeable health, and mean that someone who just won their last encounter is punished in relation to someone who won it by a long way. Also, are you even aware that H3 had a health system? It just recharged over time, but really not as quickly as people assume (your health didn't recharge for a reasonable while after your shields did). People generally appreciate Halo CE as a great example of skilful Halo play, and guess what? Had health packs. This is genuinely a new complaint to me. @Bolded: So you're genuinely telling me that the Halo 3 rank system meant something? The rank system which saw me go from a 43 to a 45 in TS (with a booster in my party, since me and my friends got sick of the time it took me to get to that 43 in the first place) over the course of 50 games, only 5 of which we lost? The rank system where other people could start a new account, go in to team dubs and go from 1 to 50 in fewer than the 45 wins that it took me to go up 2 levels? I admit, Arena is pretty stupid, but the H3 50 was a joke too, people only forget this (and I say forget is because people whined about little else when the game was our current offering) because Reach is now out and they have a fresh new game to whine about. I swear, the idea of rose tinted glasses was never more apt than when applied to the Halo community. Basically, I'm sorry but overall you're coming off a lot like the crowd over at MLG who are basically saying 'This isn't the same as what I've been playing for the past 3-6 years, therefore it takes less skill. I was good at H3/2, now I'm not good at Reach, therefore it takes less skill.' If you can take each of the issues you described and actually reason through the aspects which make it less skilful overall, then I'll think otherwise, but as it is it just seems like you've listed the differences between H3 and Reach, and said that it's therefore less skilful. This is simply not the case, and I maintain that history will not be very forgiving of this reactionary attitude toward change in Halo. I can't wait to look back on these discussions from 3 or 4 years down the line, and see what's actually come of all these criticisms and nee sayers.
Well said Pegasi; I agree entirely, but that's not to say the game is without flaws. In comparison to Halo 3, Halo Reach feels like something Bungie rushed through and didn't quite get perfect. People always hated the limits Bungie put on forge and custom games in Halo 3, but it felt like they had perfected forge. There was minimal lag, the spawn system made sense, placing objectives simply amounted to dropping some pre-defined objects, and custom games had almost everything imaginable, and each setting did exactly what it said every time. In comparison, Reach seems like something Bungie rushed through as if perfection wasn't of paramount importance. The new spawning system seems to confuse even Bungie, objectives require placing a number of odd objects with special labels and spawn sequences and using complicated settings that do nothing in most cases, and change entirely different things in different situations, and custom games lacks many of the greatest settings in Halo 3, including alpha zombie and grenade regeneration. Why did Bungie not fix all these things? I would much rather get Reach a month later with all these things fixed than have the unfinished game now.
Oh I totally agree, Reach is far from without flaws, they're just not the things he posted if you ask me. I agree completely with your points about what they inexplicably left out from custom options etc. and I too would have happily waited for the release date to be pushed back a month to see a game which had all of these things included. I'm gonna be playing the game for 3+ years, probably at least 5 tbh, so one extra month to make sure it's all it could be wouldn't bother me at all. However, FH as a group are pretty hardcore Halo fans, who make up a smaller section of the market than casual folks I think, potentially alienating them with a release date bump is much worse from a profit point of view than it would be if it were us. I maintain hope that at least some of these glaring omissions (and outright flaws in terms of KotH movement settings, Juggernaut traits etc.) are fixed with the eventual TU, though I wonder how much they'll bother adding over just fixing the glitches and tweaking balance, considering people have already bought the game.
Since when has that been bungies problem? There whole things is making games that they would enjoy, so if they see a problem in one of their own, the tend to fix it, regardless of how menial the problem is or isnt.
WARNING, LONG POST AHEAD! @peg! lol holy **** my friend that was a NICE response...i dont want to quote all of your response b/c it will take up one whole page! ha but yes its funny cause i do agree with 90% of what you said, and i feel i didnt elaborate enough on my points b/c i think you were taking them the wrong way! i guess ill just take a rebuttal at a few... lets try rocket bleed first... -i must have the word rocket "bleed" mixed up...to me i was thinking more on the lines of....shooting a rocket at a concrete wall that im behind and it kills me, instead of shielding it...lets use reflection as a good example. standing in rocket spawn and just aiming at the wood wall by snipe...death. all im saying about this, is that it is TOO easy to spam a random rocket and get a kill. where as H3 you at least needed to SEE the guy to kill them with rocks....(i do understand that it is a giant explosive, so dont flame that i dont!) then lets do health packs! -yes i know there was health in H3, all im saying about this is that i feel like if i take any damage, the next move is find a health. Not holy sh*t there's more coming, Bring it! i know people are going to say "its not H3 and you cant take on the whole team, its strategy to move to the health packs" my reply to that is, EXACTLY! you need to get health or the other team now has the upper hand in a fight...therefore equaling out the battle...again. i guess id also like to say at no point did i say AA's where bad. i enjoy using them and trying to out "chess" an opponents AA. what i was implying was yes you had the bubble an regen, but you used it around 2-3 times a game....not every encounter with a opposing player. therefore again....equaling the chances of winning a battle. oh, and bloom! i think its great. one, it gives a cool effect/aesthetic look. and two, i know i have a good Deemer (DMR) shot and enjoy catching up to those who fail to those first few critical shield droppers. i have no problem getting into a 1v1 battle knowing that i have a very good chance on wining. where as like i said in H3, one miss and you'll be on your back being tea bagged by the other guy. although it is very frustrating when you have a 3-4 shot lead on a guy and he "catches-up" on you! i know everyone has had that before! lol grrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....to the game when that happens! of course its ALL BUNGIES FAULT when i loose a Deemer battle! lol j/k so like i said i agree with what you are saying, but i think you where taking what i said the wrong way. i hope i helped clear that up...i am not flaming reach nor im a a strict MLG player. i do however only play arena, b/c i feel thats where the most competitiveness shines in reach! .....wait, i forgot the rank system! yes that is, if you will, "gay-as-aids" boosting up which was a joke! but i still feel like, in H3 id better not quit, b/c i dont want to drop a rank or been like "TITTYS!, ive been stuck on this level for like 12games and i FINALLY went up ONE LEVEL" i feel i appreciated seeing that number next to my name...as for reach, like i said i dont care if i quit out of a game...."oh no i lost some cR's" i dont play the game for armor...personally if i could donate it to some kind of an armor charity, i would! id be the Oprah of HALO:REACH! thats it...for now!
I like equipment better than abilities... creates a sense of "oooh, i just got something special, now i'm gonna go surprise someone with it" while abilities are used all the time (and thus aren't special) and weapons can be seen (and thus aren't as surprising)
Ahh ok, you're talking about the splash damage and radius of the rockets. Now I agree, that has increased, as well as them travelling faster (or at least seeming so to me). I'm genuinely not sure how I feel about this, Rocks in H3 seemed reasonably well balanced but inconsistent in how the splash damage worked, some times you'd put a rocket at what seemed like directly beneath someone's feet and they'd still walk away. I'll give you this one overall, though, the skillset with rockets is good decision making, good use of the splash damage when deciding on targets quickly, and good timing/prediction. The Reach Rockets are more rewarding for the same amount of skill than H3 overall I think, so I'd have to agree that in this sense they have been someone 'noobified'. Though perhaps this is to account for the increase in potential speed/vertical manoeuvrability added by things like Sprint, Evade and JP. To be fair, you have to take a noticeable amount of damage past no shields to come away with an actual deficit in health. Iirc there are 3 stages of health recharge (could be 4), in that your health will always return to one of these 3/4 points instead of remaining low after you've taken damage (as an example, if you get sniped from full health and shields, you'll be taken to just in the orange range of health, but it will recharge to full reasonably quickly). So basically, if you only get a bit knocked off your health then it will recharge over a short time, exactly consistent with H3, and my argument would be that if you take a lot then it's fair to punish you slightly in the long run and encourage you to either search for health or put an even higher emphasis on out playing your opponent in the next battle. I don't feel the punishment is too harsh overall, and I often stroll around with red health for a good 3 or 4 kills before taking the opportunity to replenish health when I happen to walk by a pack or realise that I'm near one. It keeps you on your toes imo, without making you useless as soon as you've taken some damage past shields. Apologies, the implication I got from your post was that the presence of AA's as a whole made the game less competitive, since you just mentioned them straight out without expanding on it much. But I do see your point. It's hard to call overall, since Halo has to, in one game, cater to both competitive and casual crowds. I generally feel it does this pretty well, and in the case of what I like to call the bull**** AAs (being the overly competitive and winning-obsessed player that I am ), I feel there are enough opportunities to avoid their presence in gametypes like Pro and, soon enough, the MLG playlist. Idk though, sure they pop up more as a result of being on-spawn abilities, but in a sense I feel that this helps reduce the luck factor involved in having an equipment or not that was true in H3. Is an overly easy reward better or worse than straight up luck/randomness? I'm honestly not sure. Yeah, like I said I think the bloom mechanic could really do with fixing. People should be consistently punished for spamming and rewarded for proper pacing, not having to rely on luck or even a poor shot on their opponent's part to come out on top when they are definitely the better player. I feel this is a problem with the game, but one that offers some small hope of being fixed, rather than an intrinsic balance issue. I personally don't like Arena much, I feel that everyone is out for themselves (and not through poor attitude, but because that's what the system promotes) way too much for team playlists. Doing well is rewarded too much over winning, which in 4v4 is just stupid (doubles is better, but only since you're inherently more likely to play with a proper partner and thus work as a good team just through being a party/friends etc.). However, I can see your point about it being where the competitive nature shines in principle, since it ensures a nice DMR start and can often help avoid the more pesky AA's through Pro gametypes. Eh, I'd personally say that how much satisfaction is gained from a level system doesn't really contribute to how competitive and skilful a game is in absolute terms, though I do take your point that there was a certain satisfaction to levelling up etc. in H3. Funny thing: when I did that run of 43-45 in TS with my two friends (we ran 3's because we could never find a 4th), one of those friends was my housemate Stefan. He has a 50, but said that getting me to 45 was more satisfying than getting him his 50 just because it was so damn hard . All 3 of us really felt like we earned my 45, as poultry an achievement as it was in the end... Lol, ok. I misjudged your post, I'll happily admit that. I still disagree overall, and the fact that H3 had some serious issues with consistency which Reach seems to have addressed is something often forgotten. But still, fair points and well made, I always think it's worth expanding on arguments like this since so often people are just saying that they hate difference or change from what they're used to/already good at. Maybe it's easy for me to say that since I appear to be better at Reach than I was at H3, idk, but I do see now that this was not the intention or meaning of your post, so apologies for that.