Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
So to answer your question...yes. In my opinion. But, not any halo game is better than any other halo. It's all just personal choice. Feel free to clown on Guardians though. I don't think anyone will care about that game.
Halo: Reach introduced the armor abilities and a whole bunch of other experimental changes which add a ton of nuance to the game. With Sprint, you can do some Halo 2-like button combos to do things like "BXR" (RB, Forward + LB, RT) but slower and requiring meter to use. With Jetpack, players who know how can use a gravity hammer to reach superbounce-like heights (I'm talking ground-to-ceiling on Headlong or even Spire) using nothing but the Jetpack and a Gravity Hammer. Plenty of players have gotten good at using Armor Lock to counter melee attackers, too. None of these things are required but the fact that they're in there means there's always more to learn and improve at in Reach, beyond just learning weapon spawns. I think that's why I'm still at it.
Reach was a damn solid title, and I prefer it to 3--but preference, just like my feeling that 3 was a disappointment--is entirely subjective.