HALO3 or R.E.A.C.H

I gotta say, I've stuck with H3... I just like the multiplayer and games there better. Plus, it actually takes some skill to get your rank up, not just playing it a lot lol Oh, and one thing that H3 has and Reach doesn't... Trick Jumping!! Yeah, it's awesome

Playstation.

'Nuff sed.

Loser.

'Nuff sed.

Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary.

Can't beat the God Pistol when doing a legendary run...

Oh so true^

Reach is all the Halo games in one. It is the ultimate Halo game and its one of the most memorable games of all time.

I go with Reach.

I liked REACH for being REACH though I feel like the Custom Games aspect that I spent so much time on playing Halo3 for is lacking. I feel at times like its just another first person shooter were you kill people and level up, were in Halo 3 it was a game full of a bunch of smaller games which sometimes didn't including killing people at all, but it was just really entertaining to me to hide in a house someone had built while a randomly selected person hunts you down and tries to kill you.

Yeah that's my point... Reach's multiplayer just can't compete with H3's

Halo 3.


The only thing i really like about Reach is Firefight online and the customization.


Everything else couldn't compare to Halo 3.

Somebody should tell 343 this Cuz I heard they was gonna use Reach's engine for H4 :/

Issenkraal wrote:Somebody should tell 343 this Cuz I heard they was gonna use Reach's engine for H4 :/

343i is using an independent engine for Halo 4, so no worries there.

I found Halo 3 to be a bit lacklustre, to be honest. The campaign was a let down - despite being the crescendo of the trilogy, it failed to really deliver on epicness and so on. The multiplayer maps were mediocre; even the DLC ones weren't all that great.

I far preferred Reach. Not only was the campaign infinitely better in capturing the emotions and sentiment of just what is happening so well, but I found the multiplayer to be far more enjoyable.

They're both of equal quality in my mind, and both are fantastic games IMO. Reach definitely made some improvements over 3, don't get me wrong, with superior combat mechanics, much better visuals, more customization, a far improved forge mode, and Firefight, but there are definitely some things I miss from 3. If you ask me, maps and weapons were more diverse in 3, and the campaign was a bit more memorable.

There are also two things they left out in Reach that really confused me: 1. Where was Martin O' Donnel's iconic main theme from the first three games? 2. What happened to Elite armor customization?

If I was forced to pick one over the other though, I'd probably go with Reach. The core game play is simply a bit better than 3.

Yeah ikr? Reach is ok... But us dino lovers have no diversity [): it's a tragedy

I found the Halo 3 campaign much more epic than Reach's.

Tip of the Spear was the big "Lets take out the covenant and puts lotsa action and stuff." And with the new engine, that would of been awesome to see.

But it had the same amount of enemies as "The Covenant" and "The Ark" which are among my favorite halo Missions. The Covenant had a sense of this is the final push. You get a tank, a warthog and a Mongoose and you have to drive down a twisting trail to where you get Hornets and then its 2 scarabs vs UNSC. Honestly and epic battle that wasn't repeated in Reach. And by repeated I mean something of the same caliber.

TotS was jsut driving and driving, oh some guns to destroy, omg spire.

The covenant had a mix of everything, driving, flying, running, shooting, boarding. I played that mission more than I have any other.


Halo 3 had a much memorable campaign.

But the goal of Reach never was to be epic - it was trying to go for a completely different approach, and I felt it succeeded far better in that than Halo 3 did at being epic.

One of the main things I found lacking in Reach was difficulty. In Reach I remember hitting the rank cap really quickly. You rank up too easily. In Halo 3 your rank feels more like it actually determines how good you are. Generals in Reach are there becuase they boosted and are so easy to mop up. While Generals in Halo 3 are legitment professionals and basically win every match.

Reach was an easy game in every game mode. It got boring for me becuase it was too easy.

Drew980 wrote:In Reach I remember hitting the rank cap really quickly. You rank up too easily. In Halo 3 your rank feels more like it actually determines how good you are. Generals in Reach are there becuase they boosted and are so easy to mop up. While Generals in Halo 3 are legitment professionals and basically win every match.

That's one of the things I dislike in Reach as well. The ranking system is plain stupid. You rank up just about as fast if you loose every match as if you win them all huge - the daily and weekly challenges seem to be the biggest factor. And anyone can face anyone, because when rank doesn't mean a crap, why put people with equal rank together? Now a complete beginner of the game can be put against highly experienced and pro players alike, which won't be fun for either of them.

Halo 3 did a much better job at making good, balanced matches. If you kept winning, you would increase in rank, at an increasing rate if you didn't loose. So a talented player would rank up quickly and eventually get to the level where he faced equals. If you kept loosing, without ever winning, you would rank down until you got to the level where you would start winning sometimes again. The system got abused, which was a pain, but at least I felt that I fought against equally skilled opponents. I won half of the times and lost half. That's a perfect balance!

Couldn't they, in Reach, at least have made it so that your score at the end of the match is determined mainly by how well you did? You know, like in every other FPS I have ever seen? Not that they are many, but still. I play BF: BC2, and there I'm rewarded for defeating my opponents, aiding my teammates and completing game objectives. I don't even understand what exactly determines my score in Reach, except the "slot machine".

Yeah, I'd have to agree with that. The ranking system is useless... You get a bunch of points per game, even if you lose

Drew980 wrote:One of the main things I found lacking in Reach was difficulty. In Reach I remember hitting the rank cap really quickly. You rank up too easily. In Halo 3 your rank feels more like it actually determines how good you are. Generals in Reach are there becuase they boosted and are so easy to mop up. While Generals in Halo 3 are legitment professionals and basically win every match.

Reach was an easy game in every game mode. It got boring for me becuase it was too easy.

The only difficulty that was made harder was the campaign. Legendary Solo was similar to Halo 1's legendary Solo.

Although the maps were more straight forward and I didn't get lost in a Cartographer.

But H3's ranking system was much better. And i was used to abuse the system and get some low ranks into a game with level 48-50's. But they were legit pros. My friend still plays H3 everyday and is probably a 50 by now in most game types. I played many of 2v2s and 4v4s with him and his friends and my friends.

My friedns of course bitched and moaned the entire time as they sucked. And these guys sniped us everywhere. And knew all the spawns .-.
I got to that point of knowing the spawns on Guardian, that was my map. Can't say I was bad at Halo 3. I won 4/5 times in free for all.

I was actually the other day considering to head back into halo 3 but most of my friends never play it anymore. Shame.