Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo: The Master Chief Collection (Xbox)

Why the love for Reach but not Halo 4?

OP Geth Pathfinder

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 5
  4. 6
  5. ...
  6. 7
Not everybody thinks that. I say Reach was a good game but "last good halo game"? Remember it's all opinions and preferences and I personally don't believe that. For me the last best halo game campaign story wise was Halo 2 and multilayer wise was Halo 3. Although I did grow up with those games, I was in highshool when halo 3 came out so I still have nostalgic memories of playing that game when it was in its prime. Halo 2 had great online back in the day as well, Halo 3 just improved on it. To me what was so great was it was all fair, was all skill of who was top dog. As in every person spawned in equal, same exact set up and all the weapons and stuff was on the map.

Reach was a good game, to me it wasn't the best though. Halo 4 had a good campaign but like others have said the online was a CoD rip off. The only thing I didn't like about Reach was the armor abilities, to me it would have been perfect game without them. Campaign was awesome though. For reasons I said above about how I liked the older ones cause its fair, pure skill. Everybody spawns in the same. I'll give props to Halo 5 cause 343 went away from what they did with Halo 4 and went back to the old days of everybody spawns in the exact same, everything else is on the map. To me Halo 5 has the worst campaign of all Halo games so to me that brings it down. Not to mention the literal pay-to-win warzone mode.

Typed on a phone so sorry for errors I didn't notice.
I don’t get why so many people hate Halo 4 but believe Reach is “the last good Halo game” Halo 4 is based on Reach. Everything about Reach was expanded in 4 apart from armor customization. I know that there’s people who will claim that Reach was the start of Halo going downhill and this question isn’t for them. I’m asking the fans of Reach why they don’t like 4? Personally, I love Halo Reach and Halo 4.

Edit: I brought this topic up because of a recent meme depicting a Halo 4/5 Master Chief putting Reach in a space labeled “Please Place Trash Here”. This joke seemed to offend a lot of people yet I see people constantly saying that H4 is trash.
I feel the same. I can understand why people (myself included) didn't like the way H4 and Reach differed from CE-3, but I simply don't get when someone likes one but not the other one. Yes, H4 took it a step further, but it was 343's first experience on game making ever, while bungie knew what already worked and decided to change it anyway. I don't usually touch on the development but rather what we got in the end, and still they are very similar games.
I don't hate Halo 4, but now that I played Reach I can see that things from the latter were removed in Halo 4 such as weapons, vehicles, modes, and features. Campaign in Halo 4 was linear, and it held your hand.
eh. halo 4 has already been given the upgrade treatment. reach hasn't. that's kinda obvious...
Not everybody thinks that. I say Reach was a good game but "last good halo game"? Remember it's all opinions and preferences and I personally don't believe that. For me the last best halo game campaign story wise was Halo 2 and multilayer wise was Halo 3. Although I did grow up with those games, I was in highshool when halo 3 came out so I still have nostalgic memories of playing that game when it was in its prime. Halo 2 had great online back in the day as well, Halo 3 just improved on it. To me what was so great was it was all fair, was all skill of who was top dog. As in every person spawned in equal, same exact set up and all the weapons and stuff was on the map.

Reach was a good game, to me it wasn't the best though. Halo 4 had a good campaign but like others have said the online was a CoD rip off. The only thing I didn't like about Reach was the armor abilities, to me it would have been perfect game without them. Campaign was awesome though. For reasons I said above about how I liked the older ones cause its fair, pure skill. Everybody spawns in the same. I'll give props to Halo 5 cause 343 went away from what they did with Halo 4 and went back to the old days of everybody spawns in the exact same, everything else is on the map. To me Halo 5 has the worst campaign of all Halo games so to me that brings it down. Not to mention the literal pay-to-win warzone mode.

Typed on a phone so sorry for errors I didn't notice.
Warzone is NOT pay to win. If you want to win at warzone with items you'll need to grind out a few other games to get those enough RP to buy them from the game store. therefore, it is NOT pay to win. I realize you all have differing opinions regarding this which is why i'm not bagging on anyone here about this.
  • Halo 4 introduced the permanent sprint mechanic.
  • Its art and sound design were very different from anything we saw and heard in previous Halo titles.
  • Its campaign levels were far more linear than anything in previous Halo campaigns (even Halo 2!).
  • Due to its new Forerunner aesthetic, many of the levels look and feel the same. - A problem shared with the Anniversary campaigns.
  • Its multiplayer, despite having a lot of well designed maps, stripped Halo of its traditional gameplay by removing all standard weapons from the map in place of customisable loadouts. This changed the experience completely.
  • It removed many gametypes such as Juggernaut, Invasion, Race, Assault, etc.
  • It removed Firefight.
  • It had no campaign Theatre.
  • Its Forge maps were significantly smaller.
Not everybody thinks that. I say Reach was a good game but "last good halo game"? Remember it's all opinions and preferences and I personally don't believe that. For me the last best halo game campaign story wise was Halo 2 and multilayer wise was Halo 3. Although I did grow up with those games, I was in highshool when halo 3 came out so I still have nostalgic memories of playing that game when it was in its prime. Halo 2 had great online back in the day as well, Halo 3 just improved on it. To me what was so great was it was all fair, was all skill of who was top dog. As in every person spawned in equal, same exact set up and all the weapons and stuff was on the map.

Reach was a good game, to me it wasn't the best though. Halo 4 had a good campaign but like others have said the online was a CoD rip off. The only thing I didn't like about Reach was the armor abilities, to me it would have been perfect game without them. Campaign was awesome though. For reasons I said above about how I liked the older ones cause its fair, pure skill. Everybody spawns in the same. I'll give props to Halo 5 cause 343 went away from what they did with Halo 4 and went back to the old days of everybody spawns in the exact same, everything else is on the map. To me Halo 5 has the worst campaign of all Halo games so to me that brings it down. Not to mention the literal pay-to-win warzone mode.

Typed on a phone so sorry for errors I didn't notice.
Warzone is NOT pay to win. If you want to win at warzone with items you'll need to grind out a few other games to get those enough RP to buy them from the game store. therefore, it is NOT pay to win. I realize you all have differing opinions regarding this which is why i'm not bagging on anyone here about this.
If you have the option to grind match after match or simply pay some money to instantly receive the same advantages then it's pay-to-win.

[Apologies moderators. My phone wouldn't let me edit my last post to add this in.]
I don’t get why so many people hate Halo 4 but believe Reach is “the last good Halo game” Halo 4 is based on Reach. Everything about Reach was expanded in 4 apart from armor customization. I know that there’s people who will claim that Reach was the start of Halo going downhill and this question isn’t for them. I’m asking the fans of Reach why they don’t like 4? Personally, I love Halo Reach and Halo 4.
Halo 4 took it a step further and added so many things to appeal to fanbases and try and steal away there competitors playerbase.Halo 4 had a good story,but multiplayer was a cod RIP off.....perks,care packages,hit markers,customizable loadouts,prestiging
The loadouts were in Reach all though you are right with the care package thing.
Two points on why I think why:
  • Sudden change of artstyle, sound design and aesthetics
    By the time Halo 4 was released, a lot of people were surprised seeing the sudden change of the game's aesthetics from the previous games.

    The community was asking 343i why's does some of the environments (especially the Forerunner architecture) look like plastic instead of the aging, rusty old metal and modern military-esque artstyle from the previous games. The most commonly asked question regarding about the change in aesthetics is why Chief's armor design changed with no explanation within the game. Unless you're willing to go out and research why; you're never going to find an explanation on why Chief's armor has changed in design.

    Armour customization in my opinion was pretty good, and an upgrade from Reach thanks to more options now allowing you to customize your legs, and forearms. But what brought it down was some of the armor design looked grotesque or just another generic design. Not to mention there's armour "variants" which is basically different skin design that servers to bloat the system just to fill in the rewards for completing a commendation.

    Sounds design is another sub-topic as virtually all of the existing weapons at the time didn't carry over the audio from previous games that the community was accustomed to.

  • Multiplayer giving an impression it's trying to attract CoD fans instead of following its roots
    Loadouts, perks, and ordnance (which is basically a care package system). All three are known for the usage in Call of Duty for years since the first Modern Warfare, except care packages which was introduced in MW2. Those 3 gave the impression they're trying to attract gamers from other communities (especially CoD). Loadouts and perks killed the idea of equal starts which Halo was known for over a decade, and ordnance virtually killed the objective of map control thanks to the game now informing everyone within the match where the power weapons are located, and will pinpoint its location as soon as it spawns.

    Hell, I can argue if you remove loadouts, made everyone start with a BR & AR with no armor abilities and perks, and power weapons spawn on intervals depending on their value and when its picked up; the multiplayer would play almost exactly like Halo Reach largely in due to the gameplay being ripped straight off from Halo: Reach. Sprint and armor abilities will still be a debate within the community.

    To anyone out there who's going to say that "Reach had loadouts as well", please keep in mind with Reach; you don't have the option to customize your loadouts, and are limited to presets which is essentially selecting which armor ability you want to use in virtually all of matchmaking.
Halo reach was original and wasn't trying to rip off other games. Halo 4 had a great campaign. The multiplayer is not as good as reach imo.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 5
  4. 6
  5. ...
  6. 7