Support NeoGAF

[Dirtbag]

I said more broad, there really is no denying in today's culture COD games and games of it's ilk will attract more people than Halo.

As for the rest of your post, like I said before, you don't like the changes, others do.

Sure some like the changes, but the numbers don't lie.
The changes weren't enough to reclaim previous halo fans that moved onto to COD, and it's turning off some of the most adament halo fans. I don't see how it was a successful change.

Bungie always said they make the games they want to make and can't always listen to the fans to make the best experience. Well this time, for me, their direction didn't work.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

Quality wise it IS a superior game, it's far more polished, supported, and works better in execution.

I'm not talking about which game type I prefer, I'm talking about the games ACTUAL quality.

I dont know why ive posted so many times, this being the internet im gonna put down the following disclaimer: I fully respect your opinion and this isnt personal. :lol

The thing is, saying that Reach is better quality than CoD is kinda pointless at this point im just trying to say that your talking to Halo fans comparing Halo games. No one is here to say CoD is better than Reach herp derp.

Reach might have better features than CoD - but its the gameplay that matters - and im talking purely on a Halo vs Halo level.



On a weird sidenote - are those avatar flames actually animated?

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Condensed

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

This may be true, but it doesn't really speak to the kinds of things that bother guys like Dirtbag (and to a degree, myself) about Reach's multiplayer game. The feature set and (to a lesser degree) polish are supreme in Reach, but there are some design decisions that I cannot fathom and which damage the game considerably for me. I mean, I really appreciate the passion behind the absurdly detailed visuals, the art, the astounding UI. The multiplayer options and the depth of the gameplay are formidable. But stuff like mêlée combat and Armor Lock in Reach just make it a lot less fun to me. I know Dirtbag wants to throw his controller across a room every time someone Armor Locks. Me, I just haven't played much MP as a result (well, that and the map on offer, which just got a big upgrade IMO).

I've been meaning to do a long "review" post on Campaign, one for Firefight, and one for MP, and have notes made about each so that I can more fully flesh out my opinion of the game. It's nuanced and even self-contradictory. But short version is Campaign - awesome (mostly), Firefight - awesome, Multiplayer - less than awesome, and depending on the setup really bad. And that stems from the base gameplay in conjunction with how the matchmaking options are configured, and how those jive with my preferred Halo game types. I mean, I played the hell out of Halo 3's MP but can't get into Reach, yet. I've stopped Forging (and writing about Forging) because I just can't get that enthusiastic about the MP gameplay that takes place on Forged maps. I seldom have fun in customs.

That said, I'm going to try and give the new maps/playlist a nice long romp and see how it sticks.

Yeah, that falls in line with what I said earlier about changes he (and you) may not like, and others completely enjoy. You can't please everyone all the time, they made the changes for a reason, some of which are negated in certain hoppers, and it's still relatively early in the game's life to assume nothing will be changed.
I for one like how melee works now, but am less than happy with how Armor lock currently works, most of us here can agree that armor lock needs looked into, however, most of us also love the game, despite it's faults.

I dont know why ive posted so many times, this being the internet im gonna put down the following disclaimer: I fully respect your opinion and this isnt personal. :lol

The thing is, saying that Reach is better quality than CoD is kinda pointless at this point im just trying to say that your talking to Halo fans comparing Halo games. No one is here to say CoD is better than Reach herp derp.

Reach might have better features than CoD - but its the gameplay that matters - and im talking purely on a Halo vs Halo level.

That's the thing, this wasn't ever about CoD in depth, I don't even know how we got here. CoD only came up when I was addressing Dirtbags post about his friends playing it over halo, and the two last CODs beating Halo. My assertion was that your friends list and UUs do not determine the better quality game, nothing more.

Sure some like the changes, but the numbers don't lie.
The changes weren't enough to reclaim previous halo fans that moved onto to COD, and it's turning off some of the most adament halo fans. I don't see how it was a successful change.

Bungie always said they make the games they want to make and can't always listen to the fans to make the best experience. Well this time, for me, their direction didn't work.

Eh, the numbers are always like this, this close to a COD launch, Halo eventually typically comes back into the running a few months down the line. It's too early to lament the death of Halo.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Yeah, that falls in line with what I said earlier about changes he (and you) may not like, and others completely enjoy. You can't please everyone all the time, they made the changes for a reason, some of which are negated in certain hoppers, and it's still relatively early in the game's life to assume nothing will be changed.

I for one like how melee works now, but am less than happy with how Armor lock currently works, most of us here can agree that armor lock needs looked into, however, most of us also love the game, despite it's faults.

Right. I don't claim to speak for anyone other than myself. I also have no idea how Reach is viewed as a whole other than to say some like the changes, some don't, and it seems to run the same spectrum and proportions of viewpoints that came from Halo 2 to Halo 3. I mean, I love the hell out of 3's gameplay, and thought it was a clear and massive upgrade from Halo 2. So my mind boggles a bit when people say they don't like 3 and prefer the previous entry. I suspect people reading opinions like mine who love Reach's MP game feel the same way about my opinion. Which is why I always qualify that I don't like something, as opposed to trying to claim some kind of objective fact and say it sucks.

Opinions and all that.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Ghaleon, can you outline your complaints about melee? Apart from the host being much more tolerant of late data from clients (which affects more than just melee, and is a godsend for people who usually get the short straw of transatlantic latency), I don't really see what you find so objectionable.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Right. I don't claim to speak for anyone other than myself. I also have no idea how Reach is viewed as a whole other than to say some like the changes, some don't, and it seems to run the same spectrum and proportions of viewpoints that came from Halo 2 to Halo 3. I mean, I love the hell out of 3's gameplay, and thought it was a clear and massive upgrade from Halo 2. So my mind boggles a bit when people say they don't like 3 and prefer the previous entry. I suspect people reading opinions like mine who love Reach's MP game feel the same way about my opinion. Which is why I always qualify that I don't like something, as opposed to trying to claim some kind of objective fact and say it sucks.

Opinions and all that.

Yep, we really have to be careful of that false consensus effect.

Perhaps 343 taking up Halo and Bungie moving on to a new IP will fire up fans of both Halo and Bungie next go around.

 

[The Librarian]

Ghaleon, can you outline your complaints about melee? Apart from the host being much more tolerant of late data from clients (which affects more than just melee, and is a godsend for people who usually get the short straw of transatlantic latency), I don't really see what you find so objectionable.

Because it isn't like Halo 3's in which you could fire off some shots and then melee for the kill. The damage doesn't roll over. No matter how much of one's shields are left, it'll still take a melee to take them out. I don't like it either, but I've adapted.

 

[Grimm Fandango]

Isn't melee lunge gone now or severely reduced? Maybe not a bad thing by itself but it takes a lot getting used to from those who used it extensively in Halo 3 (me).

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Isn't melee lunge gone now or severely reduced? Maybe not a bad thing by itself but it takes a lot getting used to from those who used it extensively in Halo 3 (me).

I'm pretty certain there is still a bit of a lunge.

 

[Princess Carl]

I figured they would change the stupid as hell overtime rules from halo 3. They didnt. What were you thinking exactly guys?

The only problem ever to arise from the halo 2 sudden death was super jumping. And great job! you guys fixed it! Now we can have the best system in place for objective overtime right? WRONG.

Wtf

 

[Mr. Enigma]

Black Ops' theater mode allows you to watch a game from someone else's first-person perspective. Bungie had three years to make it work and couldn't get the job done. Meanwhile, Treyarch nailed it on its first try.

Yeah, I'm bitter Bungie couldn't have this for Reach's theater mode. I was really hoping they'd have it. One of my many disappointments with this game.

So glad Bungie's done with Halo now.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Because it isn't like Halo 3's in which you could fire off some shots and then melee for the kill. The damage doesn't roll over. No matter how much of one's shields are left, it'll still take a melee to take them out. I don't like it either, but I've adapted.

No, I understand what's different, I just think it's a massive improvement in all but a few cases, once you've adjusted.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Black Ops' theater mode allows you to watch a game from someone else's first-person perspective. Bungie had three years to make it work and couldn't get the job done. Meanwhile, Treyarch nailed it on its first try.

Yeah, I'm bitter Bungie couldn't have this for Reach's theater mode. I was really hoping they'd have it. One of my many disappointments with this game.

So glad Bungie's done with Halo now.

Blackops theater mode is also buggy as hell, doesn't show correct weapon/person position in relation to hits, doesn't show emblems, among other things.

That said, the ability to edit your film in game is awesome.

 

[The Librarian]

Black Ops' theater mode allows you to watch a game from someone else's first-person perspective. Bungie had three years to make it work and couldn't get the job done. Meanwhile, Treyarch nailed it on its first try.

Yeah, I'm bitter Bungie couldn't have this for Reach's theater mode. I was really hoping they'd have it. One of my many disappointments with this game.

So glad Bungie's done with Halo now.

That's because the same situation will be perceived differently from person to person due to latency. Besides, we got something more important: the ability to make clips and rewind in campaign in Firefight. Something far more valuable.

No, I understand what's different, I just think it's a massive improvement in all but a few cases, once you've adjusted.

I wasn't trying to make you understand, I was pointing out his complaints: that it isn't like Halo 3 where the damage rolls over from your shields to your base health.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

No, I understand what's different, I just think it's a massive improvement in all but a few cases, once you've adjusted.

I really dislike the lack of bleed through. Especially considering how many bullets it takes to kill someone. By the time ive landed 3 or 4 shots onto someone with a DMR they could have sprinted over to me and meleed me putting us on the same level. I know that sounds stupid as an example, but it can happen a fair amount.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

I really dislike the lack of bleed through. Especially considering how many bullets it takes to kill someone. By the time ive landed 3 or 4 shots onto someone with a DMR they could have sprinted over to me and meleed me putting us on the same level. I know that sounds stupid as an example, but it can happen a fair amount.

I find this same thing annoying as hell, but still prefer the all or nothing mode that melee is now. I find myself more often than not switching to pistol if someone is sprinting at me, usually solves the problem or I die trying. :lol


I still believe being shot should deactivate sprint.

 

[Tashi]

Isn't melee lunge gone now or severely reduced? Maybe not a bad thing by itself but it takes a lot getting used to from those who used it extensively in Halo 3 (me).

No, it's still there.

Edit: about theater. I'm with you bro. Theater didn't get the love it deserved. Watching first person from other people's views would have been great but I really do miss watching film with my whole team.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Yep, we really have to be careful of that false consensus effect.

Perhaps 343 taking up Halo and Bungie moving on to a new IP will fire up fans of both Halo and Bungie next go around.

I suppose I should also note that one of the reasons I love Reach is that there's so damn much to do in it. So I can dislike an entire mode like Multiplayer, but put over 60 (!!) hours into Firefight so far and 40 (!!) into Campaign. And not tracked on b.net to my knowledge is the dozens of hours I put into lovingly building two massive multiplayer maps. And this is from someone who if he doesn't like a huge, expensive game he just bought will return it in a matter of days (as I've done about five times this gen).

It also makes Reach a hard game to "review". I feel like it's three games bound together. I've put more time into Firefight than most games this generation. So when I gripe about multiplayer, bear in mind my gripes don't actually bother me all that much, because there's so much else in the game I love.

Reach is absurdly deep and diverse. It's not surprising to me that there are slices of it that don't appeal to me for one reason or another.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

I suppose I should also note that one of the reasons I love Reach is that there's so damn much to do in it. So I can dislike an entire mode like Multiplayer, but put over 60 (!!) hours into Firefight so far and 40 (!!) into Campaign. And not tracked on b.net to my knowledge is the dozens of hours I put into lovingly building two massive multiplayer maps. And this is from someone who if he doesn't like a huge, expensive game he just bought will return it in a matter of days (as I've done about five times this gen).

It also makes Reach a hard game to "review". I feel like it's three games bound together. I've put more time into Firefight than most games this generation. So when I gripe about multiplayer, bear in mind my gripes don't actually bother me all that much, because there's so much else in the game I love.

Reach is absurdly deep and diverse. It's not surprising to me that there are slices of it that don't appeal to me for one reason or another.

Yeah, that was one of my points earlier too back when Bobs was trying to pull a hatecrime on me. :lol

 

[Shake Appeal]

I really dislike the lack of bleed through. Especially considering how many bullets it takes to kill someone. By the time ive landed 3 or 4 shots onto someone with a DMR they could have sprinted over to me and meleed me putting us on the same level. I know that sounds stupid as an example, but it can happen a fair amount.

But you aren't on the same level: you are still firing, while they are recovering from a melee. As soon as you learn not to hit melee reflexively, you start donging on people when they sprint-melee you. Once urk posted that thing about how to treat those cases, it was like a lightbulb went off on my head, and I can probably count the times I've got caught out by a double melee and it wasn't my fault since on both hands.

Put it another way: it was ten, one hundred, one thousand times more annoying to me that in a situation in Halo 3 where I had 150+ms latency more than the next guy (i.e. the majority of the time), he could fire a ludicrously short burst from his AR and then punch me and I would die. The current melee system, coupled with the increased window for client input, is a great leveller, and it means that more often than not the person who remained calmer, aimed better, and did the smarter things wins those CQC one-on-ones, or at least trades kills, and I will take most simultaneous beatdowns with a grin on my face, because I wouldn't even have got that much in 3.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

Yeah, that was one of my points earlier too back when Bobs was trying to pull a hatecrime on me. :lol

Woah, I was doing nothing of the sort.

I kinda confused myself with those CoD vs Halo posts. I was trying to say you shouldnt be comparing them, which is sort of what you were saying? Meh I give up. :lol

But you aren't on the same level: you are still firing, while they are recovering from a melee. As soon as you learn not to hit melee reflexively, you start donging on people when they sprint-melee you. Once urk posted that thing about how to treat those cases, it was like a lightbulb went off on my head, and I can probably count the times I've got caught out by a double melee and it wasn't my fault since on both hands.

Im doing something wrong, because I avoid meleeing back - yet I still find that once ive been meleed im sorta screwed. He has the lung on me, and the melee has knocked me a bit. Usually I end up trading headshot for beatdown. Dont even get me started on the melee animation which sort of tucks the head away, that annoys the hell out of me. :lol

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Woah, I was doing nothing of the sort.

I kinda confused myself with those CoD vs Halo posts. I was trying to say you shouldnt be comparing them, which is sort of what you were saying? Meh I give up. :lol

Just kidding Broseph

 

[Hydranockz]

But you aren't on the same level: you are still firing, while they are recovering from a melee. As soon as you learn not to hit melee reflexively, you start donging on people when they sprint-melee you. Once urk posted that thing about how to treat those cases, it was like a lightbulb went off on my head, and I can probably count the times I've got caught out by a double melee and it wasn't my fault since on both hands.

What were these godly tips?

 

[Grimm Fandango]

That's because the same situation will be perceived differently from person to person due to latency.

Which I find curious because everyone's head movement is still tracked in multiplayer, no? Seems kinda simple to fix but probably not.

And yeah, guess the meleeing before shields go down is the biggest adjustment to the system. Can't say I like it.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Im doing something wrong, because I avoid meleeing back - yet I still find that once ive been meleed im sorta screwed. He has the lung on me, and the melee has knocked me a bit. Usually I end up trading headshot for beatdown.

Well usually they bounce off you out of range of a second melee and you are more likely to trade headshot for headshot, though you have the advantage there because he has the (very short) window of recovery from the melee.

But it is true that whether or not they bounce off you seems pretty random at times (I think Tashi complained about this in a post once).

I mean another thing that's quite basic but easy to forget is that in Reach if you have a precision weapon you should be backing away from an enemy who doesn't, whereas in Halo 3 it made sense to close and melee to finish if you had the lead in damage. So if you're stuck in Halo 3 habits, you're going to end up in a lot more bad situations where the melee system will expose you.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

Just kidding Broseph

Pitchfork and hate mail safely stowed away.... for now.

Well usually they bounce off you out of range of a second melee and you are more likely to trade headshot for headshot, though you have the advantage there because he has the (very short) window of recovery from the melee.

But it is true that whether or not they bounce off you seems pretty random at times (I think Tashi complained about this in a post once).

I mean another thing that's quite basic but easy to forget is that in Reach if you have a precision weapon you should be backing away from an enemy who doesn't, whereas in Halo 3 it made sense to close and melee to finish if you had the lead in damage. So if you're stuck in Halo 3 habits, you're going to end up in a lot more bad situations where the melee system will expose you.

Trust me, as a guy that played Halo 3 VERY competativly that same instinct to back away was present in that game aswell. Going for melee was never a good scenario to be in but sometimes its a last resort, and quite frankly I prefered the system where I could safely melee a guy when I had put a few shots on him already. Im not doing a good job at explaining myself here AT all but that just seemed right.

Its hard to explain, I just prefered the system where I could sorta put shots into someone and then kill them off, depending on weird situations like if they had rockets etc it was a good thing to do.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Well usually they bounce off you out of range of a second melee and you are more likely to trade headshot for headshot, though you have the advantage there because he has the (very short) window of recovery from the melee.

But it is true that whether or not they bounce off you seems pretty random at times (I think Tashi complained about this in a post once).

I mean another thing that's quite basic but easy to forget is that in Reach if you have a precision weapon you should be backing away from an enemy who doesn't, whereas in Halo 3 it made sense to close and melee to finish if you had the lead in damage. So if you're stuck in Halo 3 habits, you're going to end up in a lot more bad situations where the melee system will expose you.

This is probably why a lot of people are not finding their groove.

Pitchfork and hate mail safely stowed away.... for now.

:lol

 

[Shake Appeal]

What were these godly tips?

http://www.bungie.net/news/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=28836

Scroll down to 'clang-a-lang-a-ding-dong!'

In Halo 3: fire at enemy while advancing on them; if in the lead, melee to win.
In Halo Reach: fire at enemy while retreating from them unless you think you can't beat them for aim; if they rush you and you are two or three shots away from the kill, do not melee, keep firing.

Two things that will mess with your head when going from one game to the other.

 

[neoism]

Because it works just fine with AR/Pistol starts.

You know I agree, and disagree. Mainly because the map is soo much smaller than I thought. I loove it, but I'm soo sad that it isn't a true BTB map . The small size, and it has like 5 or 6 power weapons really close the starting spawns( I use sprint like 99% of the time) so I don't have it for long so it's really no biggy.. :lol

 

[neoism]

so does bungle get any moneys from the maps?

 

[vhfive]

I had a dream the other night where I was playing Halo 3 in the Reach engine and it had the armory/credit system. It was a beautiful dream and I was sad when I woke up.

Spoiler

Actually this was a conversation with Nutter

 

[enzo_gt]

So I was screwing around in Forge and I can't seem to figure out how you can block the space area out of Anchor 9. I know you can remove the shield doors and the gravity shift still exists, but there isn't a way to completely block off the big open doors without just using a million small walls?

 

[bobs...onGaf]

http://www.bungie.net/news/content.aspx?type=topnews&cid=28836

Scroll down to 'clang-a-lang-a-ding-dong!'

In Halo 3: fire at enemy while advancing on them; if in the lead, melee to win.
In Halo Reach: fire at enemy while retreating from them unless you think you can't beat them for aim; if they rush you and you are two or three shots away from the kill, do not melee, keep firing.

Two things that will mess with your head when going from one game to the other.

I would sort of argue that really in gameplay terms its NEVER as simple as that. And that the old system played out better in a wider range of circumstances. It was also quite frankly more satisfying in my opinion. :lol

That advice seems best suited to situations where a guy is running at you from range, you rarely have the conveniance of idiots running straight at you like that. You usually get tighter situations than that.

Urks advice to advance on enemies on Halo 3 when you have the lead on them is just flat out wrong aswell. :lol

 

[Shake Appeal]

Its hard to explain, I just prefered the system where I could sorta put shots into someone and then kill them off, depending on weird situations like if they had rockets etc it was a good thing to do.

Yeah, I'm probably not explaining myself well either, but I prefer the system where I can just keep shooting someone until they die, and if I do it's because I aimed better, and not because I won some lottery of damage and latency. On the occasions where someone does rush me to melee me, I'm forced to outshoot them, or else I'm probably going to trade kills, which they don't deserve. So it's down to me to beat them, and not down to how many of their sprayed AR bullets happened to ping off me 250ms before I felt them.

But seriously, having someone rush you with AR blazing, pop your shields with a melee, and then... lose because because you calmly kept firing and returned their melee right after the shield-breaking fourth shot feels so, so much better to me than what would have happened in Halo 3.

I get why people hate AL; it doesn't bother me as much as it does them, but I completely understand the feelings and reasoning behind it. But I don't see why people don't like this melee system. It privileges good aim over getting your elbow in.

 

[neoism]

Jackpot bonus is absolute bullshit. For the first time in my Reach career I managed to get a time-out after some rage-quits and host connection fails on my part. I never hit the jackpot bonus once in my non-quitting spree of I don't know how many games. 2 games after the time-out is over. I hit the jackpot. :lol

Can you still get it... I've had like 60+ games without 1 quit... :/
At least my game complete is always like 1600+:lol :lol

 

[bobs...onGaf]

Yeah, I'm probably not explaining myself well either, but I prefer the system where I can just keep shooting someone until they die, and if I do it's because I aimed better, and not because I won some lottery of damage and latency. On the occasions where someone does rush me to melee me, I'm forced to outshoot them, or else I'm probably going to trade kills, which they don't deserve. So it's down to me to beat them, and not down to how many of their sprayed AR bullets happened to ping off me 250ms before I felt them.

But seriously, having someone rush you with AR blazing, pop your shields with a melee, and then... lose because because you calmly kept firing and melee'd them right after the shield-breaking fourth shot feels so, so much better to me than what would have happened in Halo 3.

I get why people hate AL; it doesn't bother me as much as it does them, but I completely understand the feelings and reasoning behind it. But I don't see why people don't like this melee system. It privileges good aim over getting your elbow in.

Honestly as someone with a pretty shitty UK connection I still find myself prefering Halo 3's mechanic. I found that Halo 3 had a tighter line when it came to consistancy.

I prefer the system where I can just keep shooting someone until they die, and if I do it's because I aimed better, and not because I won some lottery of damage and latency. On the occasions where someone does rush me to melee me, I'm forced to outshoot them, or else I'm probably going to trade kills, which they don't deserve.

Is exactly something I would say in preference of Halo 3's system. but thats only because on Halo 3 I felt that I could stay at fairly close range without even having to go for a beatdown. I honestly felt that I could 4 shot someone at close range before he touched me. But sure there where times when I would HAVE to 2 shot melee, im not gonna risk it with a dude who has rockets for example.

But seriously, having someone rush you with AR blazing, pop your shields with a melee, and then... lose because because you calmly kept firing and melee'd them right after the shield-breaking fourth shot feels so, so much better to me than what would have happened in Halo 3.

Again, on Halo 3 I feel confident saying that the Ar rusher wouldnt even get close enough to melee me, and so 4 shotting them before they even came close was the feeling of satisfaction for me there.

On Reach because of sprint etc, melee plays into the scenario a lot more and I cant kill a dude before he gets there. but if anything theres NO way he should be able to sprint at me and put us on level pegging after ive put 3 bullets into him - worst case scenario I kill him but leave myself open to his teammates. Hypothetically if that happened on Halo 3 I could safely melee him after outshooting him. Quite honestly on Reach I get a lot of traded kills in that situation.

I guess its one of those situations where were gonna have to agree to disagree. Im happy to admit that I might be doing it wrong but personally I think Halo 3's mechanic worked out in a greater range of situations. It did suck when melee flat out refused to work due to connection though.

 

[Shake Appeal]

That advice seems best suited to situations where a guy is running at you from range, you rarely have the conveniance of idiots running straight at you like that. You usually get tighter situations than that.

Well the other thing here is that people still expect the DMR to behave like the BR. The BR was like a pistol, a rifle, and a sniper rifle in one gun. You could fire it at almost any range, in any situation, and get away with it. If someone rushed you in a confined space, you could reasonably expect to win if you shot better. In Reach you'll probably lose, and that's because you shouldn't expect to consistently win with a rifle in close quarters against a guy who's straight-up pounding you in the face. But you manage the situations you get into: you decide when to be in a 'close quarters' space, you choose whether or not to switch to pistol, etc.

I mean, you're a better player than I am and play both games to a higher standard. And in H3, if you could think quicker and aim better with the BR you were going to win in 90% of situations. In Reach, a lot of the time you just won't have the tools for the job, or they'll have something that trumps you (Armor Lock, say) and there's nothing you can do. I can see why that pisses people off. Especially people who were very good at H3 and used to being able to shoot their way out of most situations they got into, even when they made a bad decision about where to go and when.

So many things in Reach, right down to the slow shield recharge, demand you be a lot more careful and almost cowardly at times, and metamanage the game so you're in good spots more often than not. When you mess that up and end up hammering on your DMR point-blank against a guy who just came around the corner and punched you... well, the problem isn't that you can't just outshoot the guy anymore, it's that you walked into that situation in the first place. And no one can help walking into shitty situations like that several times a game. And it can feel arbitrary and random and punishing.

I find I spend a lot more time thinking about map movement and trying to guess what people will have and where in Reach than I did in H3. I just don't have the dexterity and skill to always do what I want to do in response, and things like bloom and decreased autoaim can make that very frustrating.

But I mostly blame myself for making bad decisions and having worse execution. (Most of) the systems are fine to me.

 

[neoism]

Actually, it's like comparing Granny smith apples and Golden Delicious apples, both are FPS that "taste" different.

Regardless, I'm not talking about game play. I'm talking about polish, support, pure amount of things that can happen in Halo Reach, in addition to everything one can do.

COD doesn't come close, never has. It's a fun game, but it isn't even on the same level.

IW/Treyarch are not on the same level as Bungie. Bungie is up there with Blizzard Bioware and Valve.

so true

 

[MrDaravon]

Can you still get it... I've had like 60+ games without 1 quit... :/
At least my game complete is always like 1600+:lol :lol

I've played over 200 games since they added the Jackpot, with only one quit/boot about 90 games into that 200+ game streak and have never gotten the jackpot. I don't think it matters, but all of my games hit virtually every playlist (competitive and cooperative). And that post is I believe only the 3rd person I've seen on here get it in the close to a month since they put it up, and I don't know anybody on any other forum I go to that has gotten it. I think it's a great idea in theory, but if it's going to be THAT rare I don't know why even bother, especially since when at higher levels you're clearing 2k+ a game easily 7777 isn't a particularly big bonus.

 

[Shake Appeal]

The other thing about having to be more cowardly and cautious and waiting an age for your shields to come back up, and even then having damaged health, not to mention slower speed, etc... is that people just can't do as many clutch things as they used to. You don't see people outshooting three or four guys in seconds by themselves in Reach, it just doesn't happen. Everything conspires to make you feel more ordinary. I quite like that, but it's probably infuriating if you're used to stringing together youtube montages of four-shots.

(And when you see what people can do in the blink of an eye in a game of CoD...)

 

[bobs...onGaf]

Well the other thing here is that people still expect the DMR to behave like the BR. The BR was like a pistol, a rifle, and a sniper rifle in one gun. You could fire it at almost any range, in any situation, and get away with it. If someone rushed you in a confined space, you could reasonably expect to win if you shot better. In Reach you'll probably lose, and that's because you shouldn't expect to consistently win with a rifle in close quarters against a guy who's straight-up pounding you in the face. But you manage the situations you get into: you decide when to be in a 'close quarters' space, you choose whether or not to switch to pistol, etc.

I mean, you're a better player than I am and play both games to a higher standard. And in H3, if you could think quicker and aim better with the BR you were going to win in 90% of situations. In Reach, a lot of the time you just won't have the tools for the job, or they'll have something that trumps you (Armor Lock, say) and there's nothing you can do. I can see why that pisses people off. Especially people who were very good at H3 and used to being able to shoot their way out of most situations they got into, even when they made a bad decision about where to go and when.

So many things in Reach, right down to the slow shield recharge, demand you be a lot more careful and almost cowardly at times, and metamanage the game so you're in good spots more often than not. When you mess that up and end up hammering on your DMR point-blank against a guy who just came around the corner and punched you... well, the problem isn't that you can't just outshoot the guy anymore, it's that you walked into that situation in the first place. And no one can help walking into shitty situations like that several times a game. And it can feel arbitrary and random and punishing.

I find I spend a lot more time thinking about map movement and trying to guess what people will have and where in Reach than I did in H3. I just don't have the dexterity and skill to always do what I want to do in response, and things like bloom and decreased autoaim can make that very frustrating.

But I mostly blame myself for making bad decisions and having worse execution. (Most of) the systems are fine to me.

I definatly wouldnt say that. :lol But I have played a lot of Halo and understand the mechanics, I know when to back off for example, but I wouldnt say im a great player. But yeah ultimatly the new rock paper scissors edge to Halo Reach is something that annoys me, having a good gun and being able to kick ass in all situations was just fun. Dont get me wrong, I like the new layers of skill added by having to think about range and pick weapons, but in a game like Halo where you can only have 2 weapons this doesnt seem like it works out in execution.

Ive edited my post tons, its a bad habit of mine, and you will probably miss it, another bad habit of mine is getting muddled up in my arguments. :lol Im not so sure if the new melee mechanic is to blame as much as the fact that Reach tends to put me in more of those situations.

I guess its one of those situations where were gonna have to agree to disagree. Im happy to admit that I might be doing it wrong but personally I think Halo 3's mechanic worked out in a greater range of situations. It did suck when melee flat out refused to work due to connection though.

 

[Hey You]

Noble Map Pack FAQ

 

[Tashi]

The other thing about having to be more cowardly and cautious and waiting an age for your shields to come back up, and even then having damaged health, not to mention slower speed, etc... is that people just can't do as many clutch things as they used to. You don't see people outshooting three or four guys in seconds by themselves in Reach, it just doesn't happen. Everything conspires to make you feel more ordinary. I quite like that, but it's probably infuriating if you're used to stringing together youtube montages of four-shots.

(And when you see what people can do in the blink of an eye in a game of CoD...)

I heard the same complaint when Halo 3 came out.

 

[feel]

Noble Map Pack FAQ

Many other playlists will contain DLC maps as well, but since you are not gated from entry to these playlists by having DLC, you could match with people who don’t have the maps. If that happens, you will not get them as voting options for that session.

:/

So, afterall it will be like Halo 3 where one almost never gets the dlc the maps in regular playlists?? There's always at least one dude without the maps... le sigh, I thought things would be different this time? urk!!

 

[xxjuicesxx]

I still have to get all 1000 kills on Friday/Saturday so you scrubs better be on I DONT want to play with f'in randoms.

 

[The Librarian]

:/

So, afterall it will be like Halo 3 where one almost never gets the dlc the maps in regular playlists?? There's always at least one dude without the maps... le sigh, I thought things would be different this time? urk!!

Urk said awhile back that matchmaking will try prioritize matching with those who have DLC. So it tries to connect you with other people who have the DLC, and if it can't do that, then it moves onto people who don't have DLC.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

So many things in Reach, right down to the slow shield recharge, demand you be a lot more careful and almost cowardly at times, and metamanage the game so you're in good spots more often than not. When you mess that up and end up hammering on your DMR point-blank against a guy who just came around the corner and punched you... well, the problem isn't that you can't just outshoot the guy anymore, it's that you walked into that situation in the first place. And no one can help walking into shitty situations like that several times a game. And it can feel arbitrary and random and punishing.

I find I spend a lot more time thinking about map movement and trying to guess what people will have and where in Reach than I did in H3. I just don't have the dexterity and skill to always do what I want to do in response, and things like bloom and decreased autoaim can make that very frustrating.

But I mostly blame myself for making bad decisions and having worse execution. (Most of) the systems are fine to me.

I actually didnt respond to this before, but this is a huge nail on the head for why I prefer older Halo.

I will argue though that the way you move is a just as important on ALL games once your at a level where everyone is good at aiming. Halo has always been about map control and smart movement, Halo 3 against REALLY good players was the same, get caught with your pants down and... :lol Quite honestly more than twitch reflex this is what I think is important in Halo. Im not gonna lie, I have games where I cant be arsed and I rambo it, but generally if im playing to win I know to be flanking and to put myself in situations where I have the upper hand.

Again, I fully admit that im probably playing like a bit of a idiot myself, but im not convinced the new mechanics work as well in a range of situations that you can find yourself in. Agree to Disagree? :lol

I do agree on a lot of points though, im just doing an aweful job of putting down my words tonight.

 

[7echnicolor]

Ok so I just played with a guy in Firefight that had ALL of his matchmaking commendations at onyx.

I'm sure he HAD to boost for that right? Also, he didn't play the whole Firefight game, he somehow got out of the map and sat there the whole game. Fucking ridiculous. :lol

 

[Shake Appeal]

I heard the same complaint when Halo 3 came out.

But it was true! It was harder to dominate individually against worse players in Halo 3 than it was in Halo 2. The Halo 3 BR was pretty sappy compared to the H2 BR, for one thing. And the H3 sniper was slower and clumsier than H2's, and you couldn't swipe-snipe with it the same way. There were plenty of other changes that levelled the field and made it less likely one or two players who could aim really well would dominate. In general, Bungie are slowly but steadily making it trickier for one player to kill another in their games, and especially hard to kill a second person immediately afterwards, and then a third, a fourth...

Reach is just the next step in making the individual player feel less potent. And most people don't want to feel less potent, they want to dong.

(There are obviously a few people like Ramirez who both dong and don't like Reach, I'm just saying that a lot of people have already moved on from Halo because it makes you feel like less of a superstar, minute to minute, than other shooters on the market.)