Do you think Halo: Reach is the definitive Halo game?

  • 134 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#101 Posted by gungrave45 (124 posts) -

From a coop, multiplayer, singleplayer, and overall experience halo reach is the best halo.

#102 Posted by big_jon (5744 posts) -

@gungrave45 said:

From a coop, multiplayer, singleplayer, and overall experience halo reach is the best halo.

Agreed

#103 Posted by DaBigDawg (28 posts) -

Reach is defo the best for multiplayer and coop, but single player is a little unclear.  Each game has its high points and low points in single player, but imo it'd be between CE and Reach.

#104 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

If by "definitive" you mean "best", hell no.

#105 Edited by Tru3_Blu3 (3223 posts) -

No. ODST and Halo CE are the only Halo games that I truly enjoyed. Both had outstanding atmosphere, great pacing, and fun combat. Once ODST made the Brutes' shields stronger, it was much funner to fight them unlike Halo3. 
 
Halo CE, while having very redundant levels, had the best combat out of the whole franchise. It all went to shit once melee lunging was given to the kids. TIMING your melee attack was more satisfying, and it forced people to actually shoot in their FPS games.

#106 Edited by CandiBunni (465 posts) -
@ajamafalous said:

No. The skill ceiling in Halo 2 is definitely higher.

I lawled. Halo 2 requires more skill than Reach? I think not.
 
Reach, for me, is the best in the series for multiplayer. For a story though, I'd prefer ODST, Wars, or Combat Evolved. The only things I don't like about Reach are melee lunging, two hit melee kills (I would prefer it to be three hits instead) and the aim assist (it's not bad or anything, I just wish there was very, VERY little, if any at all.) 
#107 Posted by Tru3_Blu3 (3223 posts) -
@CandiBunni said:
@ajamafalous said:
No. The skill ceiling in Halo 2 is definitely higher.
I lawled. Halo 2 requires more skill than Reach? I think not. Reach, for me, is the best in the series for multiplayer. For a story though, I'd prefer ODST, Wars, or Combat Evolved.
Seriously. Halo2 had the most stickiest aim assist ever. Including its stupid melee lunging mechanic, its aim assist with ruin console FPSs for years to come. Halo CE did aim assist flawlessly, still demanding player skill while still "assisting" the player enough to obtain a kill.
#108 Posted by Sauson (561 posts) -

For me it is the definitive Halo. I thought Combat Evolved was awesome when it came out and I despised Halo 2, 3, and ODST. I thought the story of those games were crap, the characters unlikeable, and the mulitplayer (this counts for Reach as well) is only fun when playing with friends.

#109 Posted by Loose (419 posts) -
@Video_Game_King said:
If by "definitive" you mean "best", hell no.
This.
#110 Posted by DuhQbnSiLo (2139 posts) -

It's a huge multiplayer game with bad maps, so far from it.

#111 Edited by big_jon (5744 posts) -

@CandiBunni said:

@ajamafalous said:

No. The skill ceiling in Halo 2 is definitely higher.

I lawled. Halo 2 requires more skill than Reach? I think not. Reach, for me, is the best in the series for multiplayer. For a story though, I'd prefer ODST, Wars, or Combat Evolved. The only things I don't like about Reach are melee lunging, two hit melee kills (I would prefer it to be three hits instead) and the aim assist (it's not bad or anything, I just wish there was very, VERY little, if any at all.)

Halo 2 was a difficult game because on average the players were better, it had BxR, and super jumps too, but Halo 3 had the largest skill gap of any Halo game, that is fact.

I love Halo: Reach but the skill gap in most cases is less apparent than the past two games. Mainly because of the abuse of certain power weapons, and the AA's. N00bs who are always jet packing or armour locking get old fast. Also the sniper rifle is really easy to use, it was pretty easy to use in Halo 2 as well though.

Bloom is a positive in my eyes and I'll never really understand some peoples hate for it. Most who hate it really do not understand it.

@DuhQbnSiLo:

I wouldn't go that far, many of the DLC maps are great and there are a few well balanced launch maps too. I wish Sword base and Power house were more well made though, also I really don't understand who did the weapon placement on Hemorrhage, it is awful, not enough anti vehicle weapons.

#112 Posted by EpicSteve (6494 posts) -

Halo Reach is great in every way a Halo game is expected to be great. I didn't much care for the abilities in multiplayer, but that's more of a personal taste thing.

#113 Posted by big_jon (5744 posts) -

@EpicSteve:

I would much agree with that.

How was being an intern by the way? I long for the day I can meet the crew and see the office hand in hand.

#114 Edited by Subjugation (4726 posts) -

Halo 2 will always be my definitive multiplayer Halo. I don't care about single player.

Edited to prevent additional crying.

#115 Posted by big_jon (5744 posts) -

@weeman105: I care?

#116 Posted by Subjugation (4726 posts) -

@big_jon: That's fine. My point was people spend the vast majority of their time on the multiplayer aspects so that tends to receive the brunt of the critique. I'll play through the campaign maybe two times before I never return to it again. A few dozen hours spent in campaign versus likely hundreds in multiplayer. That's where the longevity is most likely to be.

#117 Edited by CandiBunni (465 posts) -
@big_jon said:

@CandiBunni said:

@ajamafalous said:

No. The skill ceiling in Halo 2 is definitely higher.

I lawled. Halo 2 requires more skill than Reach? I think not. Reach, for me, is the best in the series for multiplayer. For a story though, I'd prefer ODST, Wars, or Combat Evolved. The only things I don't like about Reach are melee lunging, two hit melee kills (I would prefer it to be three hits instead) and the aim assist (it's not bad or anything, I just wish there was very, VERY little, if any at all.)

Halo 2 was a difficult game because on average the players were better, it had BxR, and super jumps too, but Halo 3 had the largest skill gap of any Halo game, that is fact.

I love Halo: Reach but the skill gap in most cases is less apparent than the past two games. Mainly because of the abuse of certain power weapons, and the AA's. N00bs who are always jet packing or armour locking get old fast. Also the sniper rifle is really easy to use, it was pretty easy to use in Halo 2 as well though.

Bloom is a positive in my eyes and I'll never really understand some peoples hate for it. Most who hate it really do not understand it.

@DuhQbnSiLo:

I wouldn't go that far, many of the DLC maps are great and there are a few well balanced launch maps too. I wish Sword base and Power house were more well made though, also I really don't understand who did the weapon placement on Hemorrhage, it is awful, not enough anti vehicle weapons.

I don't find it any easier to use than it was in any past Halo game. If anything, I find it to be a teeny bit more difficult to use than in Halo 3. The AAs add more to the gameplay, and keep things interesting. (Interesting for me at least. I'm not sure about you though.) It's not that hard to defeat an armour locking opponent, and jet packers stick out like a sore thumb. Neither are that hard to deal with. The abuse of power weapons isn't anything new to the series, either. It may get annoying to have opponents jet packing, or armour locking, but that's just something you have to deal with, and learn to combat.
#118 Posted by ez123 (1967 posts) -
@weeman105: Your point was nothing.  Of course multiplayer is where the longevity probably is, that's pretty different from " Who cares about single player?"  The answer to that is most people.  The campaign is equally important, replay value and hours spent are not the end-all, be-all of what is important in a game.
#119 Posted by Subjugation (4726 posts) -

@ez123: Let's avoid an aneurysm here.

As someone who played a hell of a lot of Halo I can readily say that without the solid multiplayer portion of the game I absolutely wouldn't have felt full price would be justified. Obviously you have some strong feelings for campaign. Maybe you can lead me along your train of thought.

#120 Posted by ez123 (1967 posts) -
@weeman105: Don't read too much into things.  You posted something with no point, then said "My point was", I was just stating the obvious.    
 
In Halo, neither multipleyer or single player are tacked on like in a lot of games. When that is the case, then you can say that one aspect is more important than the other. It would be an incomplete package with either multi or single player missing.  I know that one has more play time, that doesn't change that fact.
#121 Posted by big_jon (5744 posts) -

@CandiBunni: The sniper rifle in Halo 3 had little to no auto aim, was not hit scan, and it had a smaller redicle, so it was in fact a more difficult weapon to use.

#122 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

Definitely the best campaign since the first game. I still think 2 had the best multiplayer and maps.
 
@greenygrey said:

@npeterson08 said:

It's definitely the best Halo game. However, I think the original Halo: Combat Evolved was extremely definitive, not only to the Halo franchise, but to the First Person Shooter genre in general.
It seems you've never played Half-Life before. :P

Well it did do quite a lot for FPS on console. It was the first one that felt really good to play on joypad. (If anybody brings up Goldeneye I will be a sad panda!)
 
Although one thing is after Halo came out a lot of shooters seemed to fall in love with regenerating health. I much prefer health numbers myself, regenerating health only makes sense for shields.
#123 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5147 posts) -

Nope, Halo 3 is much better.

#124 Posted by big_jon (5744 posts) -

@Mr_Skeleton said:

Nope, Halo 3 is much better.

In your opinion.

#125 Posted by SgtGrumbles (1024 posts) -

@ProfessorEss said:

I couldn't call it "definitive" due to the lack lead man and franchise icon, Master Chief.

Master Chief is a faceless essentially silent protagonist, what is it about playing through his eyes that makes the other games better? Saying that about something like Uncharted with a charismatic lead I could see, but Master Chief?

#126 Edited by Mr_Skeleton (5147 posts) -

@big_jon said:

@Mr_Skeleton said:

Nope, Halo 3 is much better.

In your opinion.

Yes, it is my opinion. What's your point?

#127 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2262 posts) -

Reach was a good game but for me never made the impact that Halo: CE made.

#128 Posted by big_jon (5744 posts) -

@Mr_Skeleton said:

@big_jon said:

@Mr_Skeleton said:

Nope, Halo 3 is much better.

In your opinion.

Yes, it is my opinion. What's your point?

I think my point was pretty clear.

#129 Posted by ProfessorEss (7451 posts) -
@NeverDave said:

@ProfessorEss said:

I couldn't call it "definitive" due to the lack lead man and franchise icon, Master Chief.

Master Chief is a faceless essentially silent protagonist, what is it about playing through his eyes that makes the other games better? Saying that about something like Uncharted with a charismatic lead I could see, but Master Chief?

Don't get me wrong, I personally think Reach is the best in the series. I'm just saying that Master Chief (for better or for worse) is the main character/icon/avatar of the franchise and I find it tough to call a Halo game without him "definitive".
#130 Posted by gungrave45 (124 posts) -

All the halo games have been amazing but i would rank Reach as number 1.
1. Reach
2. halo 3
3. Halo CE
4. ODST
5. Halo 2

#131 Posted by Mordi (553 posts) -

Halo 2 is the ultimate Halo multiplayer game. Singleplayer-wise I guess Halo 1 is the most Halo-y Halo there is.

#132 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

Yes, I do. I'm not a fan of the franchise, especially after my time with Halo 2, but I had a lot more fun than I expected when playing Reach. The larger, more open levels help a lot.
 
Skipped Halo 3 and ODST, and was going to skip Reach, but MS sent me a free copy when I got in the recent dashboard beta. If that hadn't happened, I would probably have never played it or another Halo game. Now I'm at least curious what will happen to the franchise instead of completely apathetic.

#133 Posted by Einherjar (71 posts) -

While the campaign is clearly better than ODST(which was an absolute debacle), it didn't really have any memorable moments. Which could be due to the fact that I really don't care about the halo "expanded universe". I didn't really notice any improved AI either, only seems like the elites can take a lot more hits than before. Multiplayer did try to go new places, but without any really memorable maps and a simple class system, it didn't take long before I found my way back to CoD.  
 
So all in all I think it's a decent game, but not the ultimate version of Halo like it was hyped up to be. Halo just isn't Halo without Master Chief... Or halos, for that matter. 

#134 Posted by Einherjar (71 posts) -
@ProfessorEss said:
@NeverDave said:

@ProfessorEss said:

I couldn't call it "definitive" due to the lack lead man and franchise icon, Master Chief.

Master Chief is a faceless essentially silent protagonist, what is it about playing through his eyes that makes the other games better? Saying that about something like Uncharted with a charismatic lead I could see, but Master Chief?

Don't get me wrong, I personally think Reach is the best in the series. I'm just saying that Master Chief (for better or for worse) is the main character/icon/avatar of the franchise and I find it tough to call a Halo game without him "definitive".
Master Chief has the right lines in the right places. While all these random tough soldier types from ODST/Reach constantly try so desperately to be cool, Master Chief just is.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.