The hating on Halo Reach by players and video game joirnalists is sad and funny. It is a trend on most videos I see for people to be praising Halo 4 and mocking Reach. The thing is that as amazing as Halo 4 seems , multiplayer wise is just a very extensively remastered version of Reach. The only new thing it brought is primary, secondary categories of weapons and perks.The rest are simply remastered Reach stuff and new weapons. The reason Reach receives the hate is because it was the one to try big changes first.Like bloom and armor abilities.So it acted like the frontline and now that people have accepted the change , Halo 4 gets to enjoy the praise. But I do hate on Bungie for gettin everything nice and perfect , even attempting to make all the sandbox good(hey plasma pistol that can kill again) AND THEN screwing it all up by listening to Beta people , buffing the DMR , givin DMR ONLY game types and makin HALO reach a monotonous one weapon , who shot first game AGAIN. Peace , love reach , wish bungie kept on making halo , now the people finally see and accept change , I would be curious to see how the next halo would be.
The big reason Reach got so much hate is because Bungie mainly changed the things that the general population didn't have a problem with, not the fact that it was just a drastic change from H3; Halo 2 was a drastic change from Halo 1, but its population didn't dwindle down to a laughable number within a year. They added random mechanics such as bloom and didn't see bullets flying in random directions as a problem to competitive players, etc... They also added annoying mechanics such as movement and aim acceleration, making movement and aim somewhat groggy and awkward. Overall, they took the good, fast-paced action that was in the previous Halo games and beat it with a bat slowed it down, immensely. While Halo 4's default settings isn't the ideal competitive atmosphere, at least 343 is able to recognize all of the incredibly huge faults that Reach had, which contributed to its slow and random gameplay, and change it. They took out bloom on most guns (and made it hardly affect the ones that do have it), restored speedy/smooth movement, put less stress on armor ability use/dependence, etc... It's probably not going to be perfect, but it will be a hell of a lot better than Reach.
Heh, I have problems with both. In fact, I dislike Halo 4 multiplayer because it is remastered Reach. Other games in the series instituted major changes. Equipment, dual wielding, forge, theater, ranked and more. The two major ones in Reach are AAs and Bloom. AAs negate the 'same starts, all advantages earned on map' philosophy that guided the previous titles and bloom is another random element, which is usually frowned upon in competitive play and by many others for its inconsistency in punishing players. Now, I could go on and on about why I don't like Reach multiplayer, but I'll just summarize here. Sprint along with may other AAs also messed up map design. The above reasons made it feel a lot less like what I've come to expect in a Halo title. Reach was far slower than previous titles. Skill-based matchmaking felt non-existent, full parties dominated and ranked was absent save for the lackluster Jetpack War Arena. Reach surely had its flaws. Halo 4 looks like the want to fix the slow thing, part of the random thing, and unfortunately flesh out the other things. I don't understand why someone would vehemently hate Reach and praise 4. I do understand why someone would dislike both, however. It looks like Reach 2 IMO, and I think I've had quite enough of Reach 1. I would have rather Halo 4 be a successor to Halo 3, and not Halo Reach, but whatever.
Because people wanted halo 3 with new weapons/vehicles/maps and they gave us more then that and didn't present it perfectly(could be put down to forced to rush the game) and had flaws, People nit pick about isolated details they think are bad things without considering/understanding the whole game. Example above, Reach gets hate because changed things general population didn't want changed. Yet Halo 4 will be better because the general population wants HalCoD 4... But everyone knows reach was unjustly raged at besides the people raging so not much discussion can come from this thread imo and high potential to go off topic raging.
I agree with your post overall, but let's get one thing straight: Halo 3 added both these mechanics, not Reach. Bungie added movement acceleration in Halo 3, and made it even worse in Reach. They also added aim acceleration in 3, but actually toned in down in Reach. This is one of the reasons I find the basic shooting mechanics to be better in Reach, since aiming is a much more enjoyable experience imo. OP: stop feeling as if you need to stick up for a game or developer. Games can't have their feelings hurt, and developers shouldn't. If you honestly can't see the significant differences between Reach and Halo 4 then perhaps you should spend a little more time comparing them and a little less time criticising the Halo and critical community at large. Even then, you're not comparing like for like. You're comparing pre-release hype for Halo 4 with the post release let down of Reach. Critical opinions of Reach pre-release were mixed, but with a lot of positive perspective, and the mix of opinion is more down to Halo 3 being so well loved. Based on the community opinion of Reach, it's a lot easier to hype up the follow up. Holy crap, you're right. As soon we take a second to think about it, we actually enjoy Reach more than 3, we're just so caught up in these "minor details" like shooting, movement and other fundamental gameplay mechanics that we couldn't even tell we were enjoying it! OMG you should like work for IGN or something! Seriously, people who think they know other people's opinions better than those people do are the single worst voice in the critical discussion surrounding these games. Please, just for one second can you pull your head out of your ass and be content to let people have their own opinions which may, shock horror, differ from yours? Reactions to a game are based on opinion. The entire idea of reactions/hate/love/whatever being "justified" or "unjustified" shows a profound lack of intelligence. Simple as.
Keeping in mind where only addressing the cases of unfair hate/rage. Aka people who rage because there is no BR in Reach just because.... just because. Not people who like/dislike it or have genuine criticisms/compliments but people who rage unfairly and the fact its "cool to hate on reach" and why that is, And i believe its because people wanted halo 3 with new weapons/vehicles/maps and they gave us more risky features that where poorly presented and thus unjustly raged at. That's my opinion.
Stopped reading here. People talk all the time about what is fundamental to Halo - what makes a Halo game feel like Halo. You can list all the stuff you like: nades/melee/gun combat trifecta; limited weapon slots; everyone equal off spawn (for some people - don't want to revive that tired debate); etc. Well for a great, great many people, it's having a dominant precision weapon that is most effective at mid- to long-range, but is not a true power weapon or very long range weapon like the sniper. That weapon was the pistol in CE, the BR in Halo 2 and 3, and the DMR in Reach. It is what it is. Bungie may not have intended the original magnum to be the God weapon in the set, but it was, and it shaped a lot of people's feeling about Halo gameplay. If you want to play a game where the standard range weapon is only good for annoying people and racking up assists, you need to look elsewhere. The majority of the Halo community (and yes, even the majority of the casual players who have never set foot in MLG) prefer something other than AR spray-and-pray. The DMR-style weapon is fundamental to Halo, and the first game that takes that weapon away will be the first Halo I stop playing a week after I buy it. And by the way, Reach would be intolerable with bloom, sprint, AND a weaker DMR. I didn't play the beta but you seem to imply that that was how it was configured. That sounds god-awful. Who wants to spend an entire game wounding people and being unable to finish them off except at close range?
You're not getting it. These reactions are the result of subjective opinions, which means the idea of it being justified or unjustified simply makes no sense. If people enjoy it less simply because there's no BR, and thus hate it, then that's fair enough. I personally may think it's a dumb reason, but it's subjective. Furthermore, even within the bounds of your own argument this makes no sense. You admit that ideas were risky (ie. likely to prompt negative reactions because many people won't like them) and even poorly done. Even if you could have "justified" hate then I think this would be a case of it.
People can have any opinion they want, But when they say to your face "I H8 REACH BCURSE NO BR iZ not halo" I'm allowed to have the opinion that there not educated enough on this specific topic to proactively spreading hate for the wrong reasons. Which I think is unfair/unjust and should be corrected when necessary. They can have there opinion but if they try spread there opinion (which imo is wrong) It's now my problem. And i think there was to many uneducated rage opinions formed mixed in with educated dislike and meshed together to spawn the "its cool to hate reach" which I think is unfair because its actually a good game imo.
How is voicing your opinion "spreading hate"? You're allowed to have your opinion on the game, and you're allowed to have an opinion on their opinion, but telling them not to hold that opinion or voice it is stupid. Sorry, but it is. Get over it. FFS. You can't "correct" a subjective opinion. I genuinely don't know how to make this any clearer to you. I find it pretty funny that you're getting all high and mighty about uneducated opinions when you're clearly uneducated when it comes to what an opinion even is. Why? You voice your opinion, they can voice theirs. No one has any responsibility to validate their opinion, let alone to you, before voicing it. You're sounding seriously pompous here, dude. The senseleness of this statement truly boggles the mind. So, because you think Reach is a good game (your subjective, single person opinion) you're allowed to judge other people's subjective, single person opinions as justified or not? Have you any idea how ridiculous you sound right now? Look: If the overriding community response to a game is negative, then that's because the majority of people didn't like it. This is what people are actually seeing when we get all these "why all the hate for ..." posts. Why all the hate? Because the majority of people dislike the game, and voice this opinion in no uncertain terms. How this is even a question is really confusing me. Who the hell are you or anyone else to tell these people that they're not allowed to voice their opinions? You enjoy the game, fine and dandy. Does being in the minority really bug you so much that you have to go all evangelist about trying to make people agree with you? Think about this as an example. You haven't validated your positive opinion of the game in my arbitrary terms, so I'm officially banning you from voicing any positive opinions of Reach from here on out. Every post you make on this subject is somehow my problem, so I have every right to actively try and stop you "spreading" (read: voicing) your opinion, and you have absolutely no right to complain. How does that feel? This is a childish, pompous, critically fascist school of thinking. Please don't think for a second that there's any way to justify what you're saying.
WWWilliam: Just read every post as if it has an "IMO" in front of it. When people say IMO they're automatically not trying to spread their views and are just making a statement. Here, try it on this one: Reach is a piece of **** game and it's horrible.
I find it ironic that your trying to shutdown my opinion about opinions on opinions. I like reach I'm allowed to say that whenever and wherever I want. They hate reach there allowed to say that whenever and wherever they want. If they exercise there right to come up to me or post in a public forum where openly encourages hate for reach based on there (stupid)opinion, I don't see a problem with me exercising my right to share my insightful opinion and trying to correct it. (definitely not sounding pompous here lol, But it does work in vise versa, People have different levels on insight on different topics) Peoples opinions can be wrong, Someones opinion: "The is sky is red, FACT!" Where not talking about someone saying "I miss the BR it was a fun weapon to use" like christphrbrnnn I'm fine with that, his intention wasn't to spread hate and he didn't mention why so there is no way of knowing if it was legitimate so innocent till proven guilty. Where talking about people who say "BR NEEDS TO BE IN HALO TO BE HALO WITHOUT IT THE GAME IS MASSIVELY UNBALANCED" aka having a uneducated opinion that's wrong with the intention of spreading that hate, I don't feed the trolls but if other people are taking his opinion as fact and spreading it even more I don't see anything wrong with correcting that wrong opinion.
An opinion cannot be wrong. It can be dimwitted, dumb, fallacioous, foolish, idiotic, ignorant, illogical, irrational, moronic, narrow-minded, preposterous, retarded, stupid, or uninformed, but not wrong OT
Then just replace every time I said "wrong" with "dimwitted, dumb, fallacioous, foolish, idiotic, ignorant, illogical, irrational, moronic, narrow-minded, preposterous, retarded, stupid, and uninformed". I still stand by my premise that if someone has wrong dimwitted, dumb, fallacioous, foolish, idiotic, ignorant, illogical, irrational, moronic, narrow-minded, preposterous, retarded, stupid, and uninformed opinions and spreading those wrong dimwitted, dumb, fallacioous, foolish, idiotic, ignorant, illogical, irrational, moronic, narrow-minded, preposterous, retarded, stupid, and uninformed opinions I believe I have the right to try to stop them intentionally spreading of hate with wrong dimwitted, dumb, fallacioous, foolish, idiotic, ignorant, illogical, irrational, moronic, narrow-minded, preposterous, retarded, stupid, and uninformed opinion giving other people those wrong dimwitted, dumb, fallacioous, foolish, idiotic, ignorant, illogical, irrational, moronic, narrow-minded, preposterous, retarded, stupid, and uninformed opinions but informing them as to why there opinion is wrong dimwitted, dumb, fallacioous, foolish, idiotic, ignorant, illogical, irrational, moronic, narrow-minded, preposterous, retarded, stupid, and uninformed or informing the people there spreading there wrong dimwitted, dumb, fallacioous, foolish, idiotic, ignorant, illogical, irrational, moronic, narrow-minded, preposterous, retarded, stupid, and uninformed opinions onto.