i've been a halo fan since forever, and i love reach. just sayin. ****, so according to that pre-orders image, you only get Oceanic from preordering from that HFFL website? uhhh thats BS, i hope i can still purchase the helmet in game with Cr or whatever currency. At least the gamestop skin looks okay, thats where i preordered from. Better than being a walking best buy ad, i guess?
Naw Oceanic is in the game titmar it is just that skin you won't get. Personally I hate the whole skin thing so I'm not upset. Is a piss off that the LE no longer comes with armor though.
I knew the skins were the pre-orders thing, and the armor was all still in the game, but they made it sound very clearly like the Recruit armor is only available in the LE. They even said Armor/Skin in this picture. I guess it's not terrible, except the helmet I really wanted will now be worn by anyone who turns on the game for 1 minute instead of being semi-special, but I'll just have to live with that. lol
Recruit is exclusive. I know because I read it right here. I have over 3,000,000 Cr in Reach and yet haven't bought anything from the armoury, and the pre-order exclusive **** STILL manages to piss me off.
Well apparently they changed their minds, because it's now what everyone starts off with by default. My source is a very lengthy and very detailed Weekly Update, as posted a page or two back.
Maybe they meant "Exclusive to anyone who turns on the game". I mean, it's not a huge deal, it's just armor, but it's kinda lame after they made me feel like I had something special. Bastards.
That's essentially my point. It's just another point along a line. I was simply pointing out that he was talking as if there were an objective line between Halo 3 and Reach where Bungie started catering to casuals, and that simply isn't the case. You're right that people imagined this definitive line between 2 and 3 if they liked 2 but disliked 3, and between CE and 2 etc. etc. I would have said the same to them, which is effectively that you're wrapped up in your own perspective and confusing the last game you liked with the last one that didn't cater to casuals. The reason 3 is interesting is because its follow up, Reach, was the first one that really saw upsides in competitive appreciation of the game compared to its predecessor. True these were overall outweighed by the downsides, particularly pre TU (though its interesting to note how many in the competitive community consider ZBNS MLG Reach to be notably more competitive than even the best Halo 3 settings, it took a while but this opinion got there and you'd never have seen that said about Halo 3 vs 2, or 2 vs CE), but the return of a single shot weapon alone undid a lot of the bad feeling about the high spread burst weapon in Halo 3. That's why I find it the most interesting of these points where people draw arbitrary lines and act as if they're definitive.
The reason the line is so strong between 3 and Reach though is because this focus on the casual audience wasn't so huge until post Halo 3. Yeah, bungie did some things to make Halo 3 more accessible but it was still "Halo" in the sense that their focus was just "Halo" players. Once CoD took off and the Wii, mobile gaming, etc started going crazy, the huge focus on this "casual" market took off. That's where a lot of these Reach decisions came from, they were meant to appeal to people who were not "Halo" players and to bring new people in. The "Halo" players were just expected to go along with it since it was labelled Halo.
Chrs, I respect you and so don't like saying this: that's the kind of fuzzy rhetoric I have no time for. This argument has never convinced me cause it talks about changes in intention without citing any actual tangible changes. It's not even putting words in Bungie's mouth, it's putting thoughts in their head. You may have identifiable basis for this within the game itself, which I may even agree with, but you've done nothing to reference them here.
That's what I was getting at in the why reach received so much hate thread. Because of people with opinions like chrst(got nothing against him personally) Hate Reach with no evidence to back it up with the cliche "its not halo" When discussing each point individually it turns out not so bad. AA's/Loadouts/Bloom the big 3 factors if implemented better (aka less predominantly and more AA pickups just like equipment in 3,Less loadout dependance,Lowered bloom gametypes all possible within custom games, Plus polishing all little things) reach would of been wildly more accepted but when the unpolishedness of the situation compiles with other each point, People could think "to much is different, this isn't halo" then those people with that opinion see someone else with that opinion and validate each others opinion and bushfire spreads. (there is valid criticisms of game its not perfect but that's why it was hated more then it should of been imo) But Halo 4 is the biggest gap between halos(doesn't matter if its from halo 3 or from Reach) and with the most intention of increasing demographic and most as some would say "not halo" halo IMO considering everything, But if we can remake a classic gametypes without sprint and forced loadouts then could be the most "MLG competitive" gametype in a halo.
well i mean it is called "recruit" after all. i never saw that image with the LE stuff so ive been under the assumption that it would be the default armor since i first saw it with the name. it is pretty dumb how misleading that thing is though.
I've always thought it was a weird name for armor that was supposed to be LE only. Still, the pictures should've said "Exclusive In-Game Prime Armor Skin".
I get all the pre-order stuff (LE and Console stuff aside) by pre-ordering at a Netherlands/Belgium exclusive store. It has the BR weapon skin, all the armor skins, all the emblems and it includes early access to all specializations. There are actually 2 stores in the Netherlands that offer all the pre-order bonuses. Strange, really.
That's not what I'm saying. Opinions, ie. whether you like something, are subjective, they don't have to be justified or validated in the same way. The idea of disliking something for no reason doesn't really make any sense. You may not be able to pin down the reason in to words, but there obviously is a reason otherwise you'd like it, and I see no reason to feel compelled to try and put it in to words if it doesn't come forth naturally as no one has to justify enjoying or not enjoying something. What I was talking about is an objectively identifiable discussion about whether Bungie actively catered to casuals with Reach, or at the very least distinctly did so more with Reach than any previous transition. At this point you're talking about a fact external to your own opinion, therefore there's a necessity to back it up with identifiable bases otherwise your point holds no weight in discussion. Your point is a subjective discussion, this one is objective since it can (at least in theory, obviously in practice is next to impossible) be proven, ie. it exists in a state of either true or false. Opinions are not subject to true or false, it is an entirely subjective discussion so my point doesn't apply to what you're saying.
As slightly disappointed as I am... I enjoyed Reach more than I did Halo 3 or 2. So I can see myself seriously enjoying this anyway.
I'm not necessarily making judgements on Bungie's design decisions as much as I am talking about the atmosphere around game development in general. Post Wii/CoD success, publishers went into a hardcore push to appeal to people outside their normal "audience". That's why I referred to halo as "Halo", because this was still a time before the huge Kinect, social media, bite sized gaming, etc pushes took placed where games were focused at their target audience (kids played licensed games, broskis played sports, etc). Between Halo 3 and Halo Reach was where this large shift in the game development atmosphere took place, hence why I feel people have such an easy job of drawing the line there (among other things). Now I'm not trying to put thoughts in Bungie's head but: MS states MS wants xbox to be more accessible to new audience. MS does things to support this ideal. Reach comes out with changes that make it more accessible to new audiences. Reach is published by MS. My judgement is more on MS and with good reason. MS wanted their titles to be more accessible and I believe Bungie did what they thought would do that. I don't blame Bungie.