Halo: Reach

[Brandwin]

I'm fine with that. I also agree with you about watching videos. If you bought Reach thinking the multiplayer was going to be like COD or Battlefield, you are going to be so disappointed.

[boomhauertjs]

Re: Halo: Reach

[list]Elites - I really didn't know how much I missed fighting them until playing Reach. They are so much more fun to fight than Brutes, and their really bad *** here.

This would encourage me to buy the game. I never liked fighting the Brutes.

[Champ24]

Re: Halo: Reach

I'm fine with that. I also agree with you about watching videos. If you bought Reach thinking the multiplayer was going to be like COD or Battlefield, you are going to be so disappointed.

So can you give me examples of the difference between the two? Trying to decide if I should pick this up or wait for COD Black Ops.

[CS10029]

Re: Halo: Reach

Where are you UPS?!

[Crimsontide27]

Re: Halo: Reach

So can you give me examples of the difference between the two? Trying to decide if I should pick this up or wait for COD Black Ops.

Now this is just from my perspective and I am prepared to get flamed from others.

There is no strategy here, its all running as fast as you can and jumping up and down so no one can shoot you. The players move pretty quick and with the radar you can see where peeps are at all times. There was one sniper hanging out and just crouching in a hidden area, but because of the radar, he was easy to find even without him shooting.

There have been times where you can be right behind someone and have a full clip of ammuntion and unload on them and they still dont die, but by this time 2-3 more people are around you and both end up dying to someone else.

The graphics are really good, but the multiplayer style doesnt suit what I enjoy. Its just running around in circles getting blasted, with no element to strategy or tactics.

It is my OPINION that MW2 and Battlefields multiplayer were done much better.

[Beantown]

Re: Halo: Reach

I forgot the joys of playing kids who suck online.

[sportsdude]

Re: Halo: Reach

Now this is just from my perspective and I am prepared to get flamed from others.

There is no strategy here, its all running as fast as you can and jumping up and down so no one can shoot you. The players move pretty quick and with the radar you can see where peeps are at all times. There was one sniper hanging out and just crouching in a hidden area, but because of the radar, he was easy to find even without him shooting.

There have been times where you can be right behind someone and have a full clip of ammuntion and unload on them and they still dont die, but by this time 2-3 more people are around you and both end up dying to someone else.

The graphics are really good, but the multiplayer style doesnt suit what I enjoy. Its just running around in circles getting blasted, with no element to strategy or tactics.

It is my OPINION that MW2 and Battlefields multiplayer were done much better.

you didn't answer the guy's question at all, you just listed your complaints about the Reach multiplayer.

as for champ, there are major differences between Halo Reach and the CoD series. I'm not even sure where to start really. I mean if you really know little about each game I would recommend reading some previews and watching some videos from both games.

[Crimsontide27]

Re: Halo: Reach

I dont see how I didnt answer his question, he asked about differences and I clearly laid them out.

One game is methodical and strategy based, one is run around hopping up and down.

One game doesnt require you to unload full entire clips into people, one does.

One game rewards the element of suprise, one is run n gun.

Seems like the question was answered from my point of view just fine.

[DickDalewood]

Re: Halo: Reach

^ Lol, since WHEN was Call of Duty "methodical and strategy based"??? I'm not saying your complaints about Halo aren't somewhat true, but to ignore the twitch and cheese fest that is COD is almost ludicrous. If you want to argue that from a multiplayer standpoint, then feel free to use BC2, but COD?? Seriously man, you HAVE to be kidding.

[Flawless]

Re: Halo: Reach

I'm not going to get into this debate. I've been down this road on OS with Halo 2 and 3.

But exactly why did you buy the game then? I can't fathom anybody wouldn't know what to expect from Halo multiplayer going in.

[8and9]

Re: Halo: Reach

Can't wait to get the Halo Reach Xbox 360.

[Crimsontide27]

Re: Halo: Reach

^ Lol, since WHEN was Call of Duty "methodical and strategy based"??? I'm not saying your complaints about Halo aren't somewhat true, but to ignore the twitch and cheese fest that is COD is almost ludicrous. If you want to argue that from a multiplayer standpoint, then feel free to use BC2, but COD?? Seriously man, you HAVE to be kidding.

Dont recall using CoD or BC2 in name on that last post, matter of fact, neither game was mentioned at all.

"I dont see how I didnt answer his question, he asked about differences and I clearly laid them out.

One game is methodical and strategy based, one is run around hopping up and down.

One game doesnt require you to unload full entire clips into people, one does.

One game rewards the element of suprise, one is run n gun.

Seems like the question was answered from my point of view just fine. "

Matter of fact, I still dont see any game mentioned by name whatsoever.

As usual when some disagrees with the status quo, its like I attacked your mothers or something.

I didnt say the game sucked, didnt say this is the worst ever, didnt say OMGWTFLOLBBQ...simply stated that I didnt like it and moved on. I suggest you do the same.

[Beantown]

Re: Halo: Reach

It is my OPINION that MW2 and Battlefields multiplayer were done much better.

I dont see how I didnt answer his question, he asked about differences and I clearly laid them out.

One game is methodical and strategy based, one is run around hopping up and down.

One game doesnt require you to unload full entire clips into people, one does.

One game rewards the element of suprise, one is run n gun.

Seems like the question was answered from my point of view just fine.

And, again, when did you NOT mention exactly what games you were comparing Reach to?

[mgoblue]

Re: Halo: Reach

I'm not going to get into this debate. I've been down this road on OS with Halo 2 and 3.

But exactly why did you buy the game then? I can't fathom anybody wouldn't know what to expect from Halo multiplayer going in.

So it is still the basic Halo multiplayer? I'm probably not picking it up because I end up just getting annoyed by all the whiny kids and whatnot, and I do feel the lack of strategy (I know there can be strategy, but even when I used to play Halo 1 with friends in person it was mostly just lone wolf running around killing guys, that type of gameplay has gotten old for me personally).

Probably best I skip this, especially since I felt Halo 3 was Halo 2.5 (expected more from a next gen version).

Does the campaign make it worth it? Halo 2 and 3 campaigns weren't that compelling to me (basically an afterthought cause the multiplayer was the focus), but the first Halo's was decent....

Just want to note that I'm not hating on Halo, I know I'm really weird in not having it click for me and I'm totally in the minority in my opinions on Halo 3 and ODST. Just trying to figure out if Bungie really made things better this time or if I just have to wait for their new IP for something fresh.

[ThaGenecyst]

Re: Halo: Reach

I just bought that halo reach 360 bundle with some gift cards and takin advantage of the 18 month no interest thingamajig


anyhoo, for those who haven't bought it yet, if you go to Best Buy, they're giving $20 giftcards with any Reach purchase