Halo Reach is the best

[hawkthief]

what y'all think?

[angstlicht]

for my money's worth, it was the first 'bad' halo game. winter contingency starts off strong enough, and i like the run of missions from tip of the spear to new alexandria, but in general it's way, way too generic. low multiplayer map variety, nearly all forge maps are grey, and if the game didn't have new alexandria or the jetpack ability it'd be actual trash.

in retrospect, it was all a design test bed for the destiny series, along with ODST's mombasa streets hub and firefight.

a halo game's quality can be indirectly measured by two things:
-how much is dr halsey in it (the more she's in it, the worse the game)
-how many times do you have to stick an elite on legendary to kill him (if more than 1, bad)

[hawkthief]

Originally posted by angstlicht:

for my money's worth, it was the first 'bad' halo game. winter contingency starts off strong enough, and i like the run of missions from tip of the spear to new alexandria, but in general it's way, way too generic. low multiplayer map variety, nearly all forge maps are grey, and if the game didn't have new alexandria or the jetpack ability it'd be actual trash.

in retrospect, it was all a design test bed for the destiny series, along with ODST's mombasa streets hub and firefight.

a halo game's quality can be indirectly measured by two things:
-how much is dr halsey in it (the more she's in it, the worse the game)
-how many times do you have to stick an elite on legendary to kill him (if more than 1, bad)

Interesting take. I feel like Reach was a one of a kind game. You play as the good guys fighting a hopeless battle against overwhelming odds. I feel like very very few video games depict defeat. Very few end in the death of all of your comrades, your friends, and you. I might just have a big nostalgic part in my heart influencing my opinions (Reach was the first Halo game I played, back on the ol' 360), but I think Reach was the peak of the Halo series. Every moment of that game hits hard: Overwhelming odds, your team and (lore) friends being slowly killed one by one, eventually you dying alone in combat, that final cutscene, heck, even the "Objective: Survive" on the last mission hits hard. Firefight is my absolute favorite multiplayer gamemode of any Halo game. It is just amazing. Again, it might just be because it was my first Halo game, but I think Reach is superior to all other games in the franchise.

[countgrey]

From a Campaign perspective, I think Reach and ODST are probably my favorites in the MCC, purely because they aren't Master Chief. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing as Spartan 117, but to pick one of the original trilogy as "best" is difficult, and I'm not about to pick H4 lol

For example, I have fond memories of playing CE when it came out, but the level design is definitely repetitive, which can get boring. H2 had some fun dual-wielding action, but I don't like how it ends on a cliff-hanger - having to wait years for the sequel was incredibly aggravating to me, not to mention the broken jackal snipers (a flaw is not the same thing as a feature, no matter how much some people cherish it). H3 did a good job wrapping up the story and had some fun levels, but some of the other levels felt like busywork (Tsavo Highway, Cortana), and honestly the whole Campaign in H3 just felt short.

Meanwhile, Reach and ODST are largely self-contained stories that give nods to the story of Master Chief. If you have to backtrack in Reach, they make sure the level is suitably different (beyond the original trilogy's strategy of "oh, now you're facing different enemies as you do the level backwards, so different"). and in ODST you're not really backtracking all that much unless you're doing Missions in some really weird order. It was also refreshing to be part of a competent team rather than being Captain America UNSC and having to lead a bunch of squishy Marines and sidekick Sergeant Johnson, who you often leave behind so you can go Rambo a few missions. In Reach and ODST, most of the missions are spent either fighting alongside your team or trying to return to your team. Poor Master Chief often strikes me as trying to complete a mission in spite of his "team" lol

[IRA Combatant]

reach was their idea of CE refined, which it works really well
for singleplayer it's the weakest but it had lots of interesting art, the multiplayer competes with 3, and forge was really good from the beginning.. reach multiplayer is always interesting and wacky things are constantly happening.. the only downside of the entire game is THE JETPACK

[Gabthelazy]

Armor abilities ruined Reach.
And that cursed TU.

[Remember No Russian]

It's ok to have bad opinions, but halo reach delivered the most fleshed out representation of the covenant military and the stakes humanity was wagering. The military realism mixed with fantasy was also a brilliant art style and the graphics have aged like fine wine. The representation of the senghhili was also goated and the community fun from the forge world's maps was capitalized in the best way possible because of the devs insight from halo 3

Some clown said armor lock ruined it? Didn't even use it because it was trash. It was either cloak, hologram, or sprint that I would prefer over ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ armor lock

[Remember No Russian]

You redditors are not intellectuals

[hawkthief]

Originally posted by countgrey:

In Reach and ODST, most of the missions are spent either fighting alongside your team or trying to return to your team. Poor Master Chief often strikes me as trying to complete a mission in spite of his "team" lol

Exactly my feeling. Team play is better. Master chief is cool and all, but I feel like he gets too much coverage to be much fun anymore. I like the games that focus more on others instead of ol' 117.

[hawkthief]

Originally posted by IRA Combatant:

reach was their idea of CE refined, which it works really well
for singleplayer it's the weakest but it had lots of interesting art, the multiplayer competes with 3, and forge was really good from the beginning.. reach multiplayer is always interesting and wacky things are constantly happening.. the only downside of the entire game is THE JETPACK

I love the jetpacks. I feel like the campaign is good both singleplayer and with a few friends.

[Remember No Russian]

Originally posted by IRA Combatant:

reach was their idea of CE refined, which it works really well
for singleplayer it's the weakest but it had lots of interesting art, the multiplayer competes with 3, and forge was really good from the beginning.. reach multiplayer is always interesting and wacky things are constantly happening.. the only downside of the entire game is THE JETPACK

The jetpack was totally valid in reach, most people would see it as a disadvantage given the map.

[Fastspectre]

yes reach is best in MCC

[.]

yeah i loved reach. there online mutiplayer back on xbox 360 for the Gearing system Was Great,,,,, and was fun over all to earn in game Credits to buy ur gear....

WISH YALL WOULD OF PUT THAT IN HALO INFINITE AND MAYBE ID BUY IT. Sorry i had to lmao.

[angstlicht]

Originally posted by hawkthief:

Interesting take. I feel like Reach was a one of a kind game. You play as the good guys fighting a hopeless battle against overwhelming odds. I feel like very very few video games depict defeat.

nearly every video game depicts defeat, either by you defeating the enemy or by you losing your health and needing to restart. halo reach's only real distinction, is that it all but worships 'being-defeated.' at the expense of storytelling if need be.

Very few end in the death of all of your comrades, your friends, and you.

yeah unless they're, for example, halo 1. or most named characters in halo 3. that moebius comic from halo graphic novel. or dead space 1. or doom, really.

you simply aren't noticing when it happens in other stories, because only halo reach makes it into a point of constant melodrama with literally nothing else going on to pay attention to. there's a reason lord of the rings isn't just 7 scenes of boromir dying and then it ends.

Again, it might just be because it was my first Halo game, but I think Reach is superior to all other games in the franchise.

i think you really are discounting the fact that every single halo product heavily emphasized your friendly marines and had sections where you're fighting alongside them and can protect them in-gameplay. reach just put it that into the cutscenes themselves. that spirit you're describing, was just in all the campaigns. it's kinda why i liked the exodus mission or new alexandria a bit in reach.

to me, the bulk of halo reach's storytelling is just like a version of halo wars where sgt forge comes back to life and re-dies every other level ending. people complain about halo 3 killing off miranda and johnson just to manufacture drama... reach is like if truth shot miranda with a spiker every single level ending cutscene and you're supposed to be exactly as sad about it every time.

it doesn't work for me, and maybe it only works on newcomers to halo. which is probably the point of contention with reach: halo 3 was the old guard fanbase's 'actual' ending, so this is for the new fans. but that on-ramping trait that reach has, is a double-edged sword, because it just makes it feel a lot less like a real halo game and a lot more like star wars republic commando or something.

tl;dr: if master chief is asleep during reach, so am i

[angstlicht]

Originally posted by countgrey:

If you have to backtrack in Reach, they make sure the level is suitably different (beyond the original trilogy's strategy of "oh, now you're facing different enemies as you do the level backwards, so different").

i mean it isn't that different, it's just good both times.

im not actually too sure when you do bad backtracking vs good backtracking in halo franchise, even. halo design really blurs the line on that wherever it can. the sword base level and new alexandria are basically mini-destiny-patrol-hubs in structure, so they're made to be arbitrarily re-back-tracked-through. you double back to jorge in tip of the spear and that's kinda not great, but i'm not really sure what an example of 'good' backtracking would be in that context.

halo 3 has that tank beats everything part in the ark where you get a scorpion to re-play through a few zones. and floodgate. halo 1 re-used old maps all the time but it's kinda part of that game's structure, that it loops back around in the back half. front half of halo 1 is christmas, back half is halloween. halo reach does that same thing with sword base and the package.

Poor Master Chief often strikes me as trying to complete a mission in spite of his "team" lol

what are you trying to say? that captain keyes taunting a covenant corpse with a needler, it super-combining and killing him and making you re-play the rescue mission, is some kind of liability? insubordinate... and churlish! and surrender that AI too!

Originally posted by Remember No Russian:

It's ok to have bad opinions

no it isn't, you deserve better, and i hope you recover from liking halo reach soon.

[hawkthief]

Originally posted by angstlicht:

nearly every video game depicts defeat

Yeah, but not like Reach. I meant lore-wise and you knew what I meant lol.

Originally posted by angstlicht:

halo reach's only real distinction, is that it all but worships 'being-defeated.' at the expense of storytelling if need be.

Bro the storyline is enriched by the defeat. Reach is not your average "humans losing then mastercheif come and save everything and good guys win yay". Losing well is not for everyone, I guess.

Originally posted by angstlicht:

you simply aren't noticing when it happens in other stories, because only halo reach makes it into a point of constant melodrama with literally nothing else going on to pay attention to.

Did 343 take all the battles out?!? Hmm, must've missed that.

Originally posted by angstlicht:

there's a reason lord of the rings isn't just 7 scenes of boromir dying and then it ends.

I can't tell whether it's that you've never played Reach or never watched Lord of the Rings. Half of LoTR is literally drama.

Originally posted by angstlicht:

i think you really are discounting the fact that every single halo product heavily emphasized your friendly marines and had sections where you're fighting alongside them and can protect them in-gameplay. reach just put it that into the cutscenes themselves.

Originally posted by angstlicht:

to me, the bulk of halo reach's storytelling is just like a version of halo wars where sgt forge comes back to life and re-dies every other level ending.

Umm... how is your squad dying related to that at all? That's gonna go high up on my "schizo phrases list" for sure.

Originally posted by angstlicht:

people complain about halo 3 killing off miranda and johnson just to manufacture drama... reach is like if truth shot miranda with a spiker every single level ending cutscene and you're supposed to be exactly as sad about it every time.

Yet again, it is your squad dying. I don't see what is so hard to comprehend there.

Originally posted by angstlicht:

and you're supposed to be exactly as sad about it every time.

I really hope you're not serious here. There is a major difference between your theoretical "bro coming back every time and dying" and individuals in your squad dying.

Originally posted by angstlicht:

halo 3 was the old guard fanbase's 'actual' ending, so this is for the new fans.

Reach was a prequel so it couldn't have been the ending. In Halo 3 they have "Remember Reach" graffiti-ed places, so Reach couldn't be the "ending" to Halo.

Originally posted by angstlicht:

but that on-ramping trait that reach has, is a double-edged sword, because it just makes it feel a lot less like a real halo game and a lot more like star wars republic commando or something.

Are you talking about the abilities? Like jetpack and sprint? Spartans have tech, I don't see the issue with abilities like that.

Originally posted by angstlicht:

tl;dr: if master chief is asleep during reach, so am i

When Masterchief is slacking, Noble Team's attacking.