The reasons I think 343 will do just fine

[Constantly]

First off, I don't know what bungie was thinking with Reach. I'll try to not get started on how BAD that game is.

 

343i knows this. They want Halo's fanbase back. So they're going back to it's bread and butter. Back to how Halo 2 and 3 was.

 

But Reach created a problem. They're called armor abilities. Some people like them, some people don't. I for one, think they're stupid and ruin the flow of the game. But 343i is going to have to incorporate them, in some way, because they're after ALL Halo fans. This is about money, people.

 

I get it and I can deal with this. There will be armor abilities. My hope is that they can implement it in a way that players can get that old Halo flow of things back. The BR is going to help with this. The jumping/gravity will help with this.

 

I believe they're on the right track.

[One]

When I saw the title of this topic, I thought you would be posting something positive and thoughtful. Instead, the first sentence shows the real purpose of this topic. You give no real arguments on how Armour abilities actually ruined the game. I knew you would mention Halo 2 or 3, just stop. Halo 4 needs to be its own game, with its own feel and own playstyle. Yes, it may need to borrow and adapt things from past Halos, but right out moving them from one game to another would make Halo 4,5 and 6 very stale, very fast.

[Lᴜᴋᴇ]

Oh.

My mistake, I thought you were going to actually be saying something good for once.

How wrong was I! Again, another member who just can't handle change. Although not always good, Change is not bad. I use Reach as a perfect example of this. I love reach. Armour abilities add a great and fun tactical element to the game. It's something new and exciting done by Bungie and I don't think that is a bad thing.

At least you aren't completely against them.

Also, welcome to the forums :D

[Mr Biggles]

Halo 4 seems to be following on from the good parts of every game, whic his good.

 

Just need a solely gameplay trailer now to prove my point

[Constantly]

You guys understand that Reach was a flop, right? Do you think Halo: Reach 2 would be a good idea? Expanding on an idea that works is what they need to do. That's why EVERYONE brings up Halo 2 and 3.

 

I shouldn't have to "handle" change. It's their job to make me want and accept the change (which clearly worked for you guys.) That's where Reach failed for me.

[CandiBunni]

You guys understand that Reach was a flop, right? Do you think Halo: Reach 2 would be a good idea? Expanding on an idea that works is what they need to do. That's why EVERYONE brings up Halo 2 and 3.

 

I shouldn't have to "handle" change. It's their job to make me want and accept the change. That's where Reach failed for me.

 

Halo: Reach sold around, from what I've heard, 9 million copies or so? That's not a flop in the slightest. As for the player base, there were many, many factors that contributed to the reduced player count of Reach. Some of those reasons may be the fault of Reach, however others are factors that were out of it's control. One thing is certain though. The release of big name titles before, during, and directly after the release of Halo: Reach were a part of why it saw a reduction in the numbers of players it had.

 

A lot of people seem to spout out something like "I can accept good change. I can accept changes that improve the experience.". Yet none of them have ever given any examples as to what kind of change they think would benefit the game. They never list any types of changes they would like to the series, nor any changes that might improve the experience.

 

I don't consider Halo: Reach a failure. It has one of my favourite Halo campaigns, and this is in part because I actually feel like part of the story now. It gives me an unbelievable amount of customisation for Custom Games and Firefight, allows me to set Matchmaking search criteria so that I get almost, if not exactly the kind of experience I want, and offers plenty of different game modes that I can play to my hearts content. That, coupled with the fact that I quite enjoy the gameplay, and think it's the best of any Halo game are a few reasons why it isn't a failure to me. I do believe that Halo: Reach didn't live up to its fullest potential and maybe didn't come close, but it's still an amazing game in my eyes.

[Archangel Tyrael]

Well i think it is good they are bringing certain things from halo 3 and maybe 2 i suppose? All fine to me, but Halo 4 needs its own heartbeat, like Reach has, although i did not like how they made maps + armor abilities, it just made me feel..like..really? I got used to this and now can handle things like that, although jetpack still annoys me on countdown or uncaged ugh. I have faith 343i will doa good job in fixing these issues, especially what they said for "building new maps with competetive gameplay in mind". Either they have fixed the armor abilities around to help make the game faster and more balanced, or made the maps better, or both. I really don't have a problem with armor abilities anymore, but it will always be nice if they were pick up again.

[Constantly]

I'm referring to the fanbase. I really don't think you can blame the decrease of players on other games coming out. Games come out all the time, why would any game big hugely popular if games are always coming out? People were looking for a new game.

 

As for change. I'm a proponent of don't fix what isn't broken. I didn't see a need for any significant change from Halo 3. Therefore when HUGE changes came, I wasn't happy. Wouldn't soccer fans be irrate if players were using decoys and hiding behind boulders, jumping off trampolines and so on? Yes they would. They would want soccer back. Sure, some people would be like, "This is hilarious, this game just got a whole lot more interesting." (I would be one of those guys, soccer is boring to me.)

 

A lot of the reason you like Reach is not because of the matchmaking, which is all I really care about. That's where we differ and that's fine. 343i is aware of this and will find a way to make us both happy. (I hope)

[DoctorB77]

From all of the armor abilities that were halo reach, I have to say that sprint was slightly reasonable. I think that a Spartan should have the ability to hull add out of a situation while his shields are down and he is trying not to get domeshotted.

[Constantly]

I remember jumping around Guardian in Halo 3. It's like the map was designed to allow you to fluidly move from place to place. When you add sprint, it takes that element out. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go jump around Guardian for a while.

 

Or you see someone running in the distance and you throw the perfect nade, timing it so that they'll run right into it, but then-- they take off sprinting. The skill of your grenade tossing is going to be negated as more luck is going to be involved.

 

Then there is the guy who is caught out of position that is able to sprint away. He should be dead. Tactical play is less valuable.

[Pink Lemonade]

i think sprint should only be implemented into certain joke around playlists, campaign, and customs. Otherwise it only makes the game to unpredictable to be a good competitive game. But i dont think AA's will be brought back from reach, i heard somewhere that 343 doesn't like them. I think equipment will be brought back instead, thats what the thruster pack is i think. Halo is very adjustable game and should be left vanilla H3 for standard playlists, and all the new ideas that made reach and other halo games can be added in special playlist's and customs, if 343 does this almost everyone will enjoy the game. Halo does need to progress yes but there is not that much you can change when the core gameplay is so perfect.

[Pink Lemonade]

Halo: Reach sold around, from what I've heard, 9 million copies or so? That's not a flop in the slightest. As for the player base, there were many, many factors that contributed to the reduced player count of Reach. Some of those reasons may be the fault of Reach, however others are factors that were out of it's control. One thing is certain though. The release of big name titles before, during, and directly after the release of Halo: Reach were a part of why it saw a reduction in the numbers of players it had.

 

A lot of people seem to spout out something like "I can accept good change. I can accept changes that improve the experience.". Yet none of them have ever given any examples as to what kind of change they think would benefit the game. They never list any types of changes they would like to the series, nor any changes that might improve the experience.

 

I don't consider Halo: Reach a failure. It has one of my favourite Halo campaigns, and this is in part because I actually feel like part of the story now. It gives me an unbelievable amount of customisation for Custom Games and Firefight, allows me to set Matchmaking search criteria so that I get almost, if not exactly the kind of experience I want, and offers plenty of different game modes that I can play to my hearts content. That, coupled with the fact that I quite enjoy the gameplay, and think it's the best of any Halo game are a few reasons why it isn't a failure to me. I do believe that Halo: Reach didn't live up to its fullest potential and maybe didn't come close, but it's still an amazing game in my eyes.

Halo reach was not a financial failure no, thats not what the op was referring to, it was referring to failing the fan base. Which it did fail the fan base if half the forum hates the game. If a game called halo reach two were to come out it would sell a lot less copies than H3, H2 and CE because so many fans hated reach.

[gone]

I'll try to not get started on how BAD that game is.

 

...

 

But Reach created a problem. They're called armor abilities. Some people like them, some people don't. I for one, think they're stupid and ruin the flow of the game.

 

Jesus christ, you can't label a game as trash just because you don't like one aspect of the game. Welcome to the gaming industry, you don't always get exactly what you want. Grow up.

[Unease Peanut]

Why does everybody want a halo 2/3 ish game??? Its a completely new triology I would not get your hpes up on that one.

[Pink Lemonade]

Why does everybody want a halo 2/3 ish game??? Its a completely new triology I would not get your hpes up on that one.

well they want H2 and H3 back because they were still fun when they died, H3 was near perfect and unique and bungie fixed a lot that wasn't broken. Halo is a unique game and needs to stay that way, additions and changes need to added of course but not ones that change the game to much. Halo 3 was a simple, skillful competitive, creative game and how many other console games are like that? NONE, without halo at it's original gameplay the old fan base has no where to go Thats why halo needs to go back and stay the same. if you want a different game go play a different game, if you can't find any, well go buy a good desktop and start playing one of the 900 3rd party games on steam you'll enjoy it.

[Constantly]

Jesus christ, you can't label a game as trash just because you don't like one aspect of the game. Welcome to the gaming industry, you don't always get exactly what you want. Grow up.

 

Oh there are a lot more than one aspect of the game that I don't like. Blooms, 4 guns that are single shot, jump height, falling damage, health packs, sword blocking, making it easier to dome someone with the sniper, grenade damage, sooo many maps made from forge with the same stupid color, assassination animations, the number or worthless medals they've come up with, the fact that a game rarely goes by without people quitting, the ranking system, and so on.

 

There are a lot of things I like about it to: the grenade launcher.....

 

I never said it was trash, but yes, that's a good word for it.

 

Pink Lemonade has the right idea.

[CandiBunni]

Oh there are a lot more than one aspect of the game that I don't like. Blooms, 4 guns that are single shot, jump height, falling damage, health packs, sword blocking, making it easier to dome someone with the sniper, grenade damage, sooo many maps made from forge with the same stupid color, assassination animations, the number or worthless medals they've come up with, the fact that a game rarely goes by without people quitting, the ranking system, and so on.

 

There are a lot of things I like about it to: the grenade launcher.....

 

I never said it was trash, but yes, that's a good word for it.

 

Pink Lemonade has the right idea.

• Bloom has been in every single Halo title. Halo: Reach uses a different version of bloom, but error angles have been in every single Halo title from the beginning. I don't happen to mind the Title Update bloom (85%). It feels a lot better than vanilla Reach.
  
• I suppose you mean that they can kill in a single shot to the head when someone is without shields. There's the DMR, Needle Rifle, and Magnum. That's three (Not counting the sniper rifle). Halo 3 had the BR, the Carbine, and the Magnum. That's three. Halo 2 had the BR, the Carbine, and the Magnum. That's three.
  
• Falling damage was in Halo: Combat Evolved, and play more of a role in how you navigated the maps in the multiplayer. Falling damage isn't nearly as bad as it was in Halo: Combat Evolved. You don't need to worry nearly as much about taking damage from falling as you had to in CE.
  
• Health packs were in Halo: Combat Evolved. You had non-rechargeable health in CE as well. Why is it only an issue in Halo: Reach?
  
• Sword block was removed with the title update, and I am personally glad that it is gone. There were already plenty of counters to the sword, and sword block made it nearly useless.
  
• The grenades do around the same amount of damage that they always have. The only reason they may seem stronger is because players aren't nearly as fast as in previous games.
  
• Assassinations aren't a negative. If you don't want to perform them, don't hold the button down. While someone is performing an assassination, they are completely vulnerable, so there's not really any possible issue with them. Worthless medals? So they want to give you a medal for performing a certain task, where is the issue with that? How are some medals worthless while others aren't? It's not the game's fault that people quit. It's the players. Someone quits when the gametype they want doesn't get picked, they don't like a certain map, or when they decide to rage. People who quit ruin the experience for others, and there isn't any good excuse for doing so, apart from something important in the real world demanding their attention.
  
• I agree that the ranking system isn't perfect, but it's not terrible either. Personally I would have preferred a system like Halo 3's, if not an improved version of that.
  

What is wrong with the grenade launcher? You have to aim it to do any real damage. It's not like other grenade launchers in other games where you can just fire and forget. You can simply shoot it, but then it bounces and can completely miss if you don't aim and time it properly. When you charge it and choose to use a remote detonation, I do believe that the power of it is reduced. Not to mention that you're unable to defend yourself while you're keeping the grenade armed on the ground because you cannot shoot, melee, or toss grenades unless you want the grenade to go off.

[breadstick]

There is only one thing I want that I just realized and if they had this, there would probably be no controversy over the armor abilities. If they are going to put armor abilities in Halo 4, they should have something like Slayer Pro from Reach, but in the Halo 4 games, you can not use any armor abilities (if there are any) including sprint. I'm not sure if it would be a bit much for the playlists, but I would like it if they had 2 types of playlists. Lets just call one "Pro Matchmaking" for now. In that playlist, there's still Ranked and Social games, but no armor abilities in any of the games. So it's more for the "Die-hard" Halo 2-3 fans. And then a normal Matchmaking for the Reach fans, in which there's Ranked and Social games but also armor abilities and everything else 343i decides to put in.

[Father B]

Hi and welcome to the community. I feel I should apologize for my fellow community members who may have replied out of anger at feeling offended by your OP. Your opinion is your opinion and you are entitled to have it, same as anyone. For future reference, you may want to refrain from making general statements like "...how bad that game is," and instead state it for what it is: your opinion. For example: instead of saying, "...how bad that game is," you could have said, "...how bad I think that game is," where the "I think" translates into "in my opinion." Y'know?

 

 

On topic:

 

I was right behind you, thinking, "This guy seems to have at least an average understanding of what he's talking about," as I read your OP and your replies to others.

 

That is, until I read this:

I remember jumping around Guardian in Halo 3. It's like the map was designed to allow you to fluidly move from place to place. When you add sprint, it takes that element out. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go jump around Guardian for a while.

 

Or you see someone running in the distance and you throw the perfect nade, timing it so that they'll run right into it, but then-- they take off sprinting. The skill of your grenade tossing is going to be negated as more luck is going to be involved.

 

Then there is the guy who is caught out of position that is able to sprint away. He should be dead. Tactical play is less valuable.

 

To use your example of a player running along when you toss a well-timed grenade, "luck", as you put it, would still be as much of a factor to whether you scored that kill even without Sprint (or any other AA). If that targeted player simply stopped moving, it would have the same effect on that plan as if he had used Sprint to dash on by.

 

"Luck" has always, and will always play a very large role in the Halo games. Its effect on "tactical play" has been the same - consistently random - since H:CE. We can try to control our opponents position and direction with well-placed grenades, firing-lanes, and control of the right power weapons. We can try to plan our attacks all we want, but if our opponents have even one course of action that they can take to avoid falling victim, then it all comes down to luck whether or not they take that opportunity.

 

 

As for AA's being a "problem", I don't know what to say. I've never been a big fan of the name "Armor Abilities". I think they should have been called "'SPARTAN' Abilities" because, for example, Sprint and Evade aren't technically abilities made possible by the 'MJOLNIR' system, but are things all 'SPARTANs' can do, with or without 'MJOLNIR'.

 

There are only three AA's I've found to cause a problem between "balanced gameplay" and "fun utilities" from my perspective.

1. Active Camo
   
2. Armor Lock
   
3. Jetpack.
   

The first lets you hide in plain sight and makes me look at CoD campers with admiration (which is just wrong for me to do). The second makes you virtually invulnerable for five seconds and makes the multiplayer action grind to a halt too often for me to be cool with it (doesn't stop me from using it to survive nade-spamming, which I also find distasteful, and I found myself using it to survive my own team's haphazard nade-tossing more often than the opponents'). And the third has proven terrible to me for allowing players to exploit a map's architectural flaws and the oversights on boundaries, effectively ruining what little balance the multiplayer maps had in Reach.

 

 

Apologies to anyone who disagrees with me on any particular point. Twam bless you.

[Pink Lemonade]

Hi and welcome to the community. I feel I should apologize for my fellow community members who may have replied out of anger at feeling offended by your OP. Your opinion is your opinion and you are entitled to have it, same as anyone. For future reference, you may want to refrain from making general statements like "...how bad that game is," and instead state it for what it is: your opinion. For example: instead of saying, "...how bad that game is," you could have said, "...how bad I think that game is," where the "I think" translates into "in my opinion." Y'know?

 

 

On topic:

 

I was right behind you, thinking, "This guy seems to have at least an average understanding of what he's talking about," as I read your OP and your replies to others.

 

That is, until I read this:

 

 

To use your example of a player running along when you toss a well-timed grenade, "luck", as you put it, would still be as much of a factor to whether you scored that kill even without Sprint (or any other AA). If that targeted player simply stopped moving, it would have the same effect on that plan as if he had used Sprint to dash on by.

 

"Luck" has always, and will always play a very large role in the Halo games. Its effect on "tactical play" has been the same - consistently random - since H:CE. We can try to control our opponents position and direction with well-placed grenades, firing-lanes, and control of the right power weapons. We can try to plan our attacks all we want, but if our opponents have even one course of action that they can take to avoid falling victim, then it all comes down to luck whether or not they take that opportunity.

 

 

As for AA's being a "problem", I don't know what to say. I've never been a big fan of the name "Armor Abilities". I think they should have been called "'SPARTAN' Abilities" because, for example, Sprint and Evade aren't technically abilities made possible by the 'MJOLNIR' system, but are things all 'SPARTANs' can do, with or without 'MJOLNIR'.

 

There are only three AA's I've found to cause a problem between "balanced gameplay" and "fun utilities" from my perspective.

1. Active Camo
   
2. Armor Lock
   
3. Jetpack.
   

The first lets you hide in plain sight and makes me look at CoD campers with admiration (which is just wrong for me to do). The second makes you virtually invulnerable for five seconds and makes the multiplayer action grind to a halt too often for me to be cool with it (doesn't stop me from using it to survive nade-spamming, which I also find distasteful, and I found myself using it to survive my own team's haphazard nade-tossing more often than the opponents'). And the third has proven terrible to me for allowing players to exploit a map's architectural flaws and the oversights on boundaries, effectively ruining what little balance the multiplayer maps had in Reach.

 

 

Apologies to anyone who disagrees with me on any particular point. Twam bless you.

well luck is a part of every not only every halo game but all games period. The reason why the luck factor went up in reach is because the gameplay got a whole lot more complicated(bloom, AA's, loadouts). Just three of the AA's you found that cause a problem are like more than half the commonly used AA's in standard playlists, so i would say you are more in disfavor of AA's than in favor.

[Father B]

well luck is a part of every not only every halo game but all games period. The reason why the luck factor went up in reach is because the gameplay got a whole lot more complicated(bloom, AA's, loadouts). Just three of the AA's you found that cause a problem are like more than half the commonly used AA's in standard playlists, so i would say you are more in disfavor of AA's than in favor.

 

Luck:

Ah, you see I already know that luck is a factor in all games, but the games in question are Halo Reach and Halo 4. So, moving right along...

 

 

The three AA's I find problematic:

The reason that those three AA's are used so often in standard playlists can be summed up in the old saying: "If you can't beat them, join them." That's the short version. Skip the following paragraph if you understand what I mean.

 

The long version of that reason:

Early in Reach's release (and still today but nowhere near as often), players attempted to utilize the less popular AA's whether to keep things fresh, or because they just wanted to be different. While this reasoning was inspired and often full of lolz, the fact is that while many of us kept this up, others were figuring out which AA's had the greatest overall impact on each match, and these creative, if diabolically clever people were successful in their endeavor. When this came to pass, those of us who were still toying with Hologram and Drop Shield found ourselves beaten again and again. And the truth is that even if you play for the fun and the lolz, losing all the time gets real old. So eventually we all came to realize that if we wanted to even-out the playing field we would have to play on the same terms as our opponents. And when you're up against random opponents, you'll go with what you feel will work best because you can be almost certain that your opponents will be doing the same.

 

 

Disfavouring AA's:

Do I disfavour AA's based on principle? No. Do I disfavour them based on my experience in Reach? Yes, I do, but only because of how unbalanced I have found them to be, and, in some cases (ie: Drop Shield), how virtually useless they've proven to me. That said, I have no problem with Bloom or weapon loadouts, and actually like being given an option between, say, a DMR and a Needle Rifle, or a DMR and a Shotty.

 

I'm in favour of the implementation of AA's due to tying into the Halo canon (Armor Lock, for instance, having been used to survive falling from incredible altitude), but I just hope that AA's in Halo 4 are better balanced against each other and against the multiplayer maps. And from what we've all heard on the matter, I find myself looking forward to H4 with great enthusiasm.

 

 

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify these points, PL. I've read some of your posts, and you're okay in my books.

May the Twam be with you.

[Constantly]

• Bloom has been in every single Halo title. Halo: Reach uses a different version of bloom, but error angles have been in every single Halo title from the beginning. I don't happen to mind the Title Update bloom (85%). It feels a lot better than vanilla Reach.
  
• I suppose you mean that they can kill in a single shot to the head when someone is without shields. There's the DMR, Needle Rifle, and Magnum. That's three (Not counting the sniper rifle). Halo 3 had the BR, the Carbine, and the Magnum. That's three. Halo 2 had the BR, the Carbine, and the Magnum. That's three.
  
• Falling damage was in Halo: Combat Evolved, and play more of a role in how you navigated the maps in the multiplayer. Falling damage isn't nearly as bad as it was in Halo: Combat Evolved. You don't need to worry nearly as much about taking damage from falling as you had to in CE.
  
• Health packs were in Halo: Combat Evolved. You had non-rechargeable health in CE as well. Why is it only an issue in Halo: Reach?
  
• Sword block was removed with the title update, and I am personally glad that it is gone. There were already plenty of counters to the sword, and sword block made it nearly useless.
  
• The grenades do around the same amount of damage that they always have. The only reason they may seem stronger is because players aren't nearly as fast as in previous games.
  
• Assassinations aren't a negative. If you don't want to perform them, don't hold the button down. While someone is performing an assassination, they are completely vulnerable, so there's not really any possible issue with them. Worthless medals? So they want to give you a medal for performing a certain task, where is the issue with that? How are some medals worthless while others aren't? It's not the game's fault that people quit. It's the players. Someone quits when the gametype they want doesn't get picked, they don't like a certain map, or when they decide to rage. People who quit ruin the experience for others, and there isn't any good excuse for doing so, apart from something important in the real world demanding their attention.
  
• I agree that the ranking system isn't perfect, but it's not terrible either. Personally I would have preferred a system like Halo 3's, if not an improved version of that.
  

What is wrong with the grenade launcher? You have to aim it to do any real damage. It's not like other grenade launchers in other games where you can just fire and forget. You can simply shoot it, but then it bounces and can completely miss if you don't aim and time it properly. When you charge it and choose to use a remote detonation, I do believe that the power of it is reduced. Not to mention that you're unable to defend yourself while you're keeping the grenade armed on the ground because you cannot shoot, melee, or toss grenades unless you want the grenade to go off.

 

As for single shot weapons, yes, I was Including the sniper. (I may be wrong but I think you were adding the BR to the single shot weapons. Because it shoots three bullets at a time, I didn't put that in the same category.) Why take out the BR to put in another one shot weapon? More of the same and it made the gameplay stale pretty quickly. It was nice to be able to swipe across a player's head that was one shot and move on.

 

I really don't think you can compare the bloom in Reach to other Halos.

 

I understand a lot of stuff that is in Reach was in Halo CE. These are things I felt they improved upon in Halo 2 and 3 and had no idea why they would want to revert back to that. They took two steps forward and one step back, imo.

 

Luck is of course involved. If you lead a player with a sticky grenade (like a quarterback and wide receiver), yes, he can stop. Now he can stop AND sprint. PLUS what is that player more likely to do? Run then just randomly stop? Or, something like sprint, run, sprint? So to stick that player now, is going to take even more luck. Someone had a good reply in another post about how adding elements like that, reduces skill needed and adds in randomness and luck. I think that's a great point. How many long distance grenade sticks have you guys had in Reach compared to Halo 3?

 

I'm just not a fan of the assassinations, that's all I have on that subject.

 

I really don't care about medals. But my argument would be: I found it fun to see how many medals I would end up with in Halo 3. They've added in so many in Reach that it seems watered-down. You can get a medal for almost anything, so they don't seem as valuable.

 

People used to quit all kinds of games. It seemed that in Halo 3 people would usually just quit when they were getting stomped. In Reach people just quit all the time, at any stage of the game, for whatever reason. I don't know why but it adds to my dislike of Reach.

 

I love the grenade launcher. That is the one thing I think 343i should take from Reach.

 

It's not my intent to make anyone mad about what I write. This is the first time I've ever discussed Reach with anyone that actually likes it, let alone thinks it's the best of the series. I genuinly enjoy discussing it and trying to understand why people do like it.

[Pink Lemonade]

As for single shot weapons, yes, I was Including the sniper. (I may be wrong but I think you were adding the BR to the single shot weapons. Because it shoots three bullets at a time, I didn't put that in the same category.) Why take out the BR to put in another one shot weapon? More of the same and it made the gameplay stale pretty quickly. It was nice to be able to swipe across a player's head that was one shot and move on.

 

I really don't think you can compare the bloom in Reach to other Halos.

 

I understand a lot of stuff that is in Reach was in Halo CE. These are things I felt they improved upon in Halo 2 and 3 and had no idea why they would want to revert back to that. They took two steps forward and one step back, imo.

 

Luck is of course involved. If you lead a player with a sticky grenade (like a quarterback and wide receiver), yes, he can stop. Now he can stop AND sprint. PLUS what is that player more likely to do? Run then just randomly stop? Or, something like sprint, run, sprint? So to stick that player now, is going to take even more luck. Someone had a good reply in another post about how adding elements like that, reduces skill needed and adds in randomness and luck. I think that's a great point. How many long distance grenade sticks have you guys had in Reach compared to Halo 3?

 

I'm just not a fan of the assassinations, that's all I have on that subject.

 

I really don't care about medals. But my argument would be: I found it fun to see how many medals I would end up with in Halo 3. They've added in so many in Reach that it seems watered-down. You can get a medal for almost anything, so they don't seem as valuable.

 

People used to quit all kinds of games. It seemed that in Halo 3 people would usually just quit when they were getting stomped. In Reach people just quit all the time, at any stage of the game, for whatever reason. I don't know why but it adds to my dislike of Reach.

 

I love the grenade launcher. That is the one thing I think 343i should take from Reach.

 

It's not my intent to make anyone mad about what I write. This is the first time I've ever discussed Reach with anyone that actually likes it, let alone thinks it's the best of the series. I genuinly enjoy discussing it and trying to understand why people do like it.

ya the grenade launcher was awesome, it was the only skillful thing they added into reach and i hope 343 brings it back. The reason i think so many people quit in reach compared to H3 is because most of the community is composed of casual gamers who come from a mainstream game called call of duty, and when they play a game with someone like me they rage quit because they can't kill anything. Reach is just so much more frustrating than the other games because it's more complicated, that makes people quickly get demoralized and fall into a epic game of rape when they play against a better team. As for assassinations Ive never really cared for them either, i don't see any point in keeping them out because a lot of people like them. But for me halo is a game for competition i don't really care how pretty it looks when it comes to animations and graphics, i just want to feel comfortable playing it.