Is Halo Reach the most disappointing sequel ever?

Halo Reach was a huge disappointment to me, worst Halo game in terms of fun imo.

Jagged3dge

describe "fun"

I don't even like Halo as a whole, and verily enjoyed it

pills4louis

thats the problem. you didnt really like halo in the first place but you enjoyed halo reach. what does that tell you

[QUOTE="ghostwarrior786"]

i dont understand developers, they spend years trying to perfect their formula than they throw it out the window. halo 3 was great game but halo reach with bloom, slower speed, no bleedthrough etc. just seems like a step backward. reminds me of gears of war 2 but epic, to their credit, have made for that mess with gears of war 3 one of the best multiplayer game i have ever played.

pc-ps360

i have doubts u played reach

are you seriously trying to say you dont notice the speed difference? play halo reach then go play the c lassic playlist

Reach´s campaign is seriously disappointingPAL360

Awful sequel, great prequel ;)

:P

Halo Reach has the most god awful maps within the halo series and multiplayer in general. Not to mention amror lock is a broken over used game mechanic. If those two things were fixed then I would actually enjoy playing on live. I swear the only thng they got riight with Reach was Firefight. I will admit it is extremely fun

[QUOTE="pills4louis"]

I don't even like Halo as a whole, and verily enjoyed it

ghostwarrior786

thats the problem. you didnt really like halo in the first place but you enjoyed halo reach. what does that tell you

that reach is vastly different from other halos, which is a good thing?

Condemned 2 is the worst sequel ever.

No, Halo Reach is pretty much the only game I'm jealous of the 360 having, being a ps3 owner. I used to have a 360 and personally, thought halo 3 was dreadful in comparison to halo 2. Went round to my mates and played Reach and thought it improved in every possible way, not to mention the fact that firefights was an awesome addition.

Firstly it's a prequel and likely one of the best prequels evah plus, Halo: Reach's Sequel is fo sho the best evah....

Halo CE. :P

[QUOTE="pc-ps360"]

[QUOTE="ghostwarrior786"]

i dont understand developers, they spend years trying to perfect their formula than they throw it out the window. halo 3 was great game but halo reach with bloom, slower speed, no bleedthrough etc. just seems like a step backward. reminds me of gears of war 2 but epic, to their credit, have made for that mess with gears of war 3 one of the best multiplayer game i have ever played.

ghostwarrior786

i have doubts u played reach

are you seriously trying to say you dont notice the speed difference? play halo reach then go play the c lassic playlist

i did after playing reach i found that halo 3 mp is unplayable and toooooooo slow

Not the most. But definitely DISAPPOINTING.

However, better than Halo 3, me thinks.

When Halo 4 comes out, its going to take the title of worst sequel ever to a whole new frightening level. A different dev trying to reboot a clearly finished series? It's gonna suck so bad it HURTS.

[QUOTE="ghostwarrior786"]

[QUOTE="pc-ps360"]

i have doubts u played reach

pc-ps360

are you seriously trying to say you dont notice the speed difference? play halo reach then go play the c lassic playlist

i did after playing reach i found that halo 3 mp is unplayable and toooooooo slow

No, Halo Reach is pretty much the only game I'm jealous of the 360 having, being a ps3 owner. I used to have a 360 and personally, thought halo 3 was dreadful in comparison to halo 2. Went round to my mates and played Reach and thought it improved in every possible way, not to mention the fact that firefights was an awesome addition.

DarthJohnova

[QUOTE="lawlessx"]

[QUOTE="R3FURBISHED"]

sure you did - but look at it like this: Reach scored a 9.5 here on GS and has an average score of 9.2, was wildly nominated for Best Shooter and GOTY (amoung others), all the while keeping true to a formula that was created in 2001 or before

If that is a "disappointing" game then the games that had preceeded it must have been pretty damned amazing.

themyth01

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]I thought Halo Reach was... FAR better than Halo 3. :?timmy00

Anyways that honor goes to DMC2 TC.

Actually I change my answer to Dynasty Warriors 6.

Lol what is this? Reach is a massive improvement over 3 to me. 3 had a piss poor campaign. Good multiplay, but definitely not much, if any better then Reach.

Halo 1 is by far the best, but 2 and reach are both at the same level.

magnax1

[QUOTE="ghostwarrior786"]

i dont understand developers, they spend years trying to perfect their formula than they throw it out the window. halo 3 was great game but halo reach with bloom, slower speed, no bleedthrough etc. just seems like a step backward. reminds me of gears of war 2 but epic, to their credit, have made for that mess with gears of war 3 one of the best multiplayer game i have ever played.

Plagueless

[QUOTE="DarthJohnova"]

No, Halo Reach is pretty much the only game I'm jealous of the 360 having, being a ps3 owner. I used to have a 360 and personally, thought halo 3 was dreadful in comparison to halo 2. Went round to my mates and played Reach and thought it improved in every possible way, not to mention the fact that firefights was an awesome addition.

Microsoft1234

It's always been that way though. Fans complained with the changes from Halo CE to Halo 2, and let's not forget the huge whining that followed from Halo 2 to Halo 3.

I never even go near Bungie.NET now because it's tiring to hear so many people that refuse to accept change instead of enjoying Reach for what it is.

[QUOTE="dommeus"]

Reach was better than Halo 3 anyway. Well, the campaign was.

khoofia_pika

[QUOTE="Microsoft1234"][QUOTE="DarthJohnova"]

No, Halo Reach is pretty much the only game I'm jealous of the 360 having, being a ps3 owner. I used to have a 360 and personally, thought halo 3 was dreadful in comparison to halo 2. Went round to my mates and played Reach and thought it improved in every possible way, not to mention the fact that firefights was an awesome addition.

Kickinurass

It's always been that way though. Fans complained with the changes from Halo CE to Halo 2, and let's not forget the huge whining that followed from Halo 2 to Halo 3.

I never even go near Bungie.NET now because it's tiring to hear so many people that refuse to accept change instead of enjoying Reach for what it is.

MW2,DMC2,Unreal tournament 3 and RE5 are all better contenders for this dubios honour tbh

no killzone 3 is

Dragon Age 2 is the worst.

i really really enjoyed reach actually, i found it way more enjoyable then halo 3

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

[QUOTE="Microsoft1234"] you obviously haven't played other halos and didn't play reach enough. All people do on reach is complain about Bungie.Microsoft1234

It's always been that way though. Fans complained with the changes from Halo CE to Halo 2, and let's not forget the huge whining that followed from Halo 2 to Halo 3.

I never even go near Bungie.NET now because it's tiring to hear so many people that refuse to accept change instead of enjoying Reach for what it is.

You can't make such generic claims. Halo CE was better in terms of SP, but Halo 2 definitely has the weakest singleplayer out of all Halo games.

Halo 2 may have been the "funnest" Halo game MP wise, but I honestly believe a large portion of that had to do with timing it being the first serious online game on consoles. Really, Halo 2 was far more broken that Reach in several areas, from the near instant sword lung, multiple game-breaking glitches, a complete dominance of the battle rifle over near all other weapons, noob combos, and ineffectual dual-wielding combinations, the last two which Bungie carried over to Halo 3. Not to say anything of the super jumping exploits and rampant hacking toward the end of the Xbox life span, nor the many other things that Reach has over it such as custom game editing and Forge, and a much more enjoyable co-op campaign. I will admit that Halo 2 had far better maps though, and the campaign easter eggs were probably the best in the series.

Halo 3 sits in the middle, it took some steps in the right direction, and some steps continuing the wrong direction. It honestly had an identity crisis of not going too far into new territory nor staying close to what was already established. It did manage to be more balanced that Halo 2, yet the dominance of the battle rifle was still unchallenged.

Bloom does slow down the pace of battles, but with Reach's heightened focus on teamwork, you should be team-shooting anyway. It surprises me to this day that people expect to pull that lone wolf stuff that worked in Halo 2 only to get owned and whine about it.

One its not a sequel.... And if you still want to call it that its much better than Halo 2 and 3.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

[QUOTE="Microsoft1234"] you obviously haven't played other halos and didn't play reach enough. All people do on reach is complain about Bungie.Microsoft1234

It's always been that way though. Fans complained with the changes from Halo CE to Halo 2, and let's not forget the huge whining that followed from Halo 2 to Halo 3.

I never even go near Bungie.NET now because it's tiring to hear so many people that refuse to accept change instead of enjoying Reach for what it is.

[QUOTE="Microsoft1234"][QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

It's always been that way though. Fans complained with the changes from Halo CE to Halo 2, and let's not forget the huge whining that followed from Halo 2 to Halo 3.

I never even go near Bungie.NET now because it's tiring to hear so many people that refuse to accept change instead of enjoying Reach for what it is.

Kickinurass

You can't make such generic claims. Halo CE was better in terms of SP, but Halo 2 definitely has the weakest singleplayer out of all Halo games.

Halo 2 may have been the "funnest" Halo game MP wise, but I honestly believe a large portion of that had to do with timing it being the first serious online game on consoles. Really, Halo 2 was far more broken that Reach in several areas, from the near instant sword lung, multiple game-breaking glitches, a complete dominance of the battle rifle over near all other weapons, noob combos, and ineffectual dual-wielding combinations, the last two which Bungie carried over to Halo 3. Not to say anything of the super jumping exploits and rampant hacking toward the end of the Xbox life span, nor the many other things that Reach has over it such as custom game editing and Forge, and a much more enjoyable co-op campaign. I will admit that Halo 2 had far better maps though, and the campaign easter eggs were probably the best in the series.

Halo 3 sits in the middle, it took some steps in the right direction, and some steps continuing the wrong direction. It honestly had an identity crisis of not going too far into new territory nor staying close to what was already established. It did manage to be more balanced that Halo 2, yet the dominance of the battle rifle was still unchallenged.

Bloom does slow down the pace of battles, but with Reach's heightened focus on teamwork, you should be team-shooting anyway. It surprises me to this day that people expect to pull that lone wolf stuff that worked in Halo 2 only to get owned and whine about it.

[QUOTE="moistsandwich"]

FAIL... Halo Reach is a prequel

R3FURBISHED

awesome

halo was fail since day one (for my personal taste ofc).

Meh, Halo 3 was more disapointing for me than Reach.

Sorry, but Reach blows those pieces of crap halo 2 and 3 out fo the water.

One its not a sequel.... And if you still want to call it that its much better than Halo 2 and 3.

GTSaiyanjin2

[QUOTE="Microsoft1234"][QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

It's always been that way though. Fans complained with the changes from Halo CE to Halo 2, and let's not forget the huge whining that followed from Halo 2 to Halo 3.

I never even go near Bungie.NET now because it's tiring to hear so many people that refuse to accept change instead of enjoying Reach for what it is.

Kickinurass

You can't make such generic claims. Halo CE was better in terms of SP, but Halo 2 definitely has the weakest singleplayer out of all Halo games.

Halo 2 may have been the "funnest" Halo game MP wise, but I honestly believe a large portion of that had to do with timing it being the first serious online game on consoles. Really, Halo 2 was far more broken that Reach in several areas, from the near instant sword lung, multiple game-breaking glitches, a complete dominance of the battle rifle over near all other weapons, noob combos, and ineffectual dual-wielding combinations, the last two which Bungie carried over to Halo 3. Not to say anything of the super jumping exploits and rampant hacking toward the end of the Xbox life span, nor the many other things that Reach has over it such as custom game editing and Forge, and a much more enjoyable co-op campaign. I will admit that Halo 2 had far better maps though, and the campaign easter eggs were probably the best in the series.

Halo 3 sits in the middle, it took some steps in the right direction, and some steps continuing the wrong direction. It honestly had an identity crisis of not going too far into new territory nor staying close to what was already established. It did manage to be more balanced that Halo 2, yet the dominance of the battle rifle was still unchallenged.

Bloom does slow down the pace of battles, but with Reach's heightened focus on teamwork, you should be team-shooting anyway. It surprises me to this day that people expect to pull that lone wolf stuff that worked in Halo 2 only to get owned and whine about it.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

[QUOTE="Microsoft1234"] a couple things, halo 1 was much better, as was halo 2. I can see people arguing for halo reach over halo 3. But the multiplayer has not improved, period. It became clear after halo 3 that bungie has no idea what they're doing. AcidSoldner

You can't make such generic claims. Halo CE was better in terms of SP, but Halo 2 definitely has the weakest singleplayer out of all Halo games.

Halo 2 may have been the "funnest" Halo game MP wise, but I honestly believe a large portion of that had to do with timing it being the first serious online game on consoles. Really, Halo 2 was far more broken that Reach in several areas, from the near instant sword lung, multiple game-breaking glitches, a complete dominance of the battle rifle over near all other weapons, noob combos, and ineffectual dual-wielding combinations, the last two which Bungie carried over to Halo 3. Not to say anything of the super jumping exploits and rampant hacking toward the end of the Xbox life span, nor the many other things that Reach has over it such as custom game editing and Forge, and a much more enjoyable co-op campaign. I will admit that Halo 2 had far better maps though, and the campaign easter eggs were probably the best in the series.

Halo 3 sits in the middle, it took some steps in the right direction, and some steps continuing the wrong direction. It honestly had an identity crisis of not going too far into new territory nor staying close to what was already established. It did manage to be more balanced that Halo 2, yet the dominance of the battle rifle was still unchallenged.

Bloom does slow down the pace of battles, but with Reach's heightened focus on teamwork, you should be team-shooting anyway. It surprises me to this day that people expect to pull that lone wolf stuff that worked in Halo 2 only to get owned and whine about it.

[QUOTE="Microsoft1234"][QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

It's always been that way though. Fans complained with the changes from Halo CE to Halo 2, and let's not forget the huge whining that followed from Halo 2 to Halo 3.

I never even go near Bungie.NET now because it's tiring to hear so many people that refuse to accept change instead of enjoying Reach for what it is.

DarthJohnova