| | Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer | |
|
|
| Halo 3 vs Halo Reach | | Halo 3 | | 40% | [ 8 ] | | Halo Reach | | 60% | [ 12 ] |
| | Total Votes : 20 | | |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
Stigma

Join date: 2011-01-03 Age: 18 Location: US
 | Subject: Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:10 am | |
| Simple topic, which is better and why. I think Halo 3 online is superior to Reach by far. Despite what some people say, Halo 3 and Reach multiplayer is WAY different. Halo Reach is a lot more fast paced and unbalanced and is less skillful than Halo 3. Reach added bloom, sprint, and loadouts which were never a part of Halo to begin with and what helped Halo diversify from every other FPS out there.
Bloom was annoying and made weapons more reliant on luck than skill while sprint changed the way people played. The usual tactic was to shoot someone with the AR and then run up to melee them. With sprint it ended up with people bum rushing you and double meleeing which is cheap as hell and made the energy sword a fucking god weapon. The sword's one hit kill was balanced due to the fact that it only worked in close quarters and was suicide to use in open areas, but with sprint you simple dash across an open area and easily kill someone. This charge tactic also worked with shotguns. Loadouts made the game really freaking unbalanced. The point of stuff like invisibility and bubble shields in the other Halo games was that they worked as a buff, they were in one part of the map and someone could run up and get it and get a slight advantage over the enemy. HOWEVER, now that you could spawn with them led to massive abuse of power ups. In Halo 3 there could only be 1 invisible person at a time and the pick up had a 30 second respawn rate. Now people spawn with invisibility pick up a sniper and go camp. Then there's armor lock, fucking gamebreaking, WORSE than Infiltrators in Killzone or Commando in MW2.
Halo 3 was incredible balanced as everyone in a game would spawn with the same equipment and power ups wouldn't be abused. In Halo Reach loadouts made matches unbalanced and invisibility and armor lock are abused to hell. Also another problem I had with Halo Reach is that it seems far more infantry based than Halo 3. Halo 3 had a good mix of infantry, vehicles, and aircraft. Reach seems to have been tweaked to appeal to the typical COD fanbase and spit the Halo fanbase. On one hand, some really liked the changes, while some fucking hated them like myself.
Well there's my reason/rant of why Halo 3 is better. Remember to EXPLAIN why you like one better than the other but you don't have to get into detail as much as I did. I will continue to play Halo 3 again along with the other 10's of thousands of fans who still continue to play it for a long time. |
|
 | |
Toxicmaniac

Join date: 2011-02-23 Age: 17 Location: Planet reach
 | Subject: Re: Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:08 am | |
| Well they are really different to begin with but i gotta give it to halo reach. In halo 3 it was way easier to kil someone as it only had a shield. In reach it has a shield and life-bar. While i like the maps alot better on halo 3, halo reach has amazing new weapons like the DMR, plasma launcer and focus rifle. I love the load outs (except armor lock) It has great new gametypes like invasion, rocket race and finally a grifball loby without waiting for double xp weekend. Oh yeah and i wuv assasination. :3 ___________________________ We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state, from which the vast majority have never stirred. - Richard Dawkins  |
|
 | |
Lykos

Join date: 2010-12-29 Age: 19 Location: UK
 | Subject: Re: Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:20 am | |
| I think Reach was tighter and everything and I prefer the custom maps of reach but halo 3 had a massive roster of maps and I spent a lot more time on halo 3 than reach. In fact I'm already bored of reach unfortunately. Maybe I'll give it another chance if I can be arsed.
They're both good in their own ways I think. |
|
 | |
TheCinemaJack Hall of Fame


Join date: 2010-12-30 Age: 17 Location: New York, United States
 | Subject: Re: Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:19 pm | |
| I like Halo 3 more because the multiplayer is simpler and more "arcadey," whereas Reach has the loadouts which I'm not a huge fan of. ___________________________ Check out my blog, MAG Journal! |
|
 | |
TheJubJub5721 Hall of Fame


Join date: 2010-12-29 Location: The Citadel
 | Subject: Re: Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:08 pm | |
| | TRF wrote: | | I like Halo 3 more because the multiplayer is simpler and more "arcadey," whereas Reach has the loadouts which I'm not a huge fan of. |
Pretty much summed up what I would say. Halo 3 was a lot more simple. And with the loadouts and such it feels like they are trying to be more like other games like CoD. |
|
 | |
TheCinemaJack Hall of Fame


Join date: 2010-12-30 Age: 17 Location: New York, United States
 | Subject: Re: Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:55 pm | |
| | TheJubJub5721 wrote: | | TRF wrote: | | I like Halo 3 more because the multiplayer is simpler and more "arcadey," whereas Reach has the loadouts which I'm not a huge fan of. |
Pretty much summed up what I would say. Halo 3 was a lot more simple. And with the loadouts and such it feels like they are trying to be more like other games like CoD. |
Exactly. I like it more when everyone has an equal playing field from the start. With loadouts, you don't really get that.___________________________ Check out my blog, MAG Journal! |
|
 | |
Toxicmaniac

Join date: 2011-02-23 Age: 17 Location: Planet reach
 | Subject: Re: Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:56 pm | |
| | TRF wrote: | | TheJubJub5721 wrote: | | TRF wrote: | | I like Halo 3 more because the multiplayer is simpler and more "arcadey," whereas Reach has the loadouts which I'm not a huge fan of. |
Pretty much summed up what I would say. Halo 3 was a lot more simple. And with the loadouts and such it feels like they are trying to be more like other games like CoD. |
Exactly. I like it more when everyone has an equal playing field from the start. With loadouts, you don't really get that. |
Unless they all use the same loadout. ._.___________________________ We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state, from which the vast majority have never stirred. - Richard Dawkins  |
|
 | |
TheJubJub5721 Hall of Fame


Join date: 2010-12-29 Location: The Citadel
 | Subject: Re: Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:21 pm | |
| | Toxicmaniac wrote: | | TRF wrote: | | TheJubJub5721 wrote: | | TRF wrote: | | I like Halo 3 more because the multiplayer is simpler and more "arcadey," whereas Reach has the loadouts which I'm not a huge fan of. |
Pretty much summed up what I would say. Halo 3 was a lot more simple. And with the loadouts and such it feels like they are trying to be more like other games like CoD. |
Exactly. I like it more when everyone has an equal playing field from the start. With loadouts, you don't really get that. |
Unless they all use the same loadout. ._. |
There are 5 loadouts in a standard Slayer match... |
|
 | |
NoelX2

Join date: 2010-12-29 Location: MI
 | Subject: Re: Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:58 pm | |
| I liked 3 because of the variety of maps. And I dont have the map packs for Reach. |
|
 | |
Duke

Join date: 2010-12-30
 | Subject: Re: Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:21 pm | |
| I voted for Halo 3, cause it's the only one I played. I've never played Reach. |
|
 | |
Pickles1337

Join date: 2011-01-13
 | Subject: Re: Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:10 am | |
| I like Reach better.
You can play the Classic playlist without the loadouts.
And I dig playing in maps the community made.(Some of them are terrible but others are pretty good)
But I think they tried a little too hard to appeal to the COD fanbase.
The loadouts made the game a little unbalanced. Those two things are STANDARD for a COD game.
And I kind of hate playing Infection when all of the zombies have Evade. I got used to it but a Classic Infection would be nice. |
|
 | |
Blixtstorm Designers


Join date: 2011-01-01 Age: 22 Location: Sweden
 | Subject: Re: Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:40 am | |
| The armour abilities make the game much more unbalanced then Halo 3. This is seen mostly in Living Dead playlist. |
|
 | |
TheJubJub5721 Hall of Fame


Join date: 2010-12-29 Location: The Citadel
 | Subject: Re: Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:21 pm | |
| | Blixtstorm wrote: | | The armour abilities make the game much more unbalanced then Halo 3. This is seen mostly in Living Dead playlist. |
This. That is really why I rarely play Slayer anymore. If I play, it is usually Action Sack or Griffball. |
|
 | |
The_Biotic_God Hall of Fame


Join date: 2010-12-29 Age: 18 Location: Everywhere.
 | Subject: Re: Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer Sat May 07, 2011 12:51 pm | |
| Everything is pretty much better in Reach...Don't see how the multiplayer is inferior.
Besides, Forge is better in Reach and the result of this is even more famazing custom maps. |
|
 | |
TheCinemaJack Hall of Fame


Join date: 2010-12-30 Age: 17 Location: New York, United States
 | Subject: Re: Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer Sat May 07, 2011 3:19 pm | |
| | Alanski wrote: | Everything is pretty much better in Reach...Don't see how the multiplayer is inferior.
Besides, Forge is better in Reach and the result of this is even more famazing custom maps. |
Yes, with all of the same scenery. At least Halo 3 has multiple maps worth Forging on. Reach has Forge World and that's pretty much it, and the scenery gets quite boring after awhile.___________________________ Check out my blog, MAG Journal! |
|
 | |
| | Halo 3 vs Halo Reach Multiplayer | |
|