Skip to main content

Forums / Community / Poll Discussions

[POLL]Halo: Reach or Halo 5, Which game is better?

OP CRUSADER ZORRO

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 12
  4. 13
  5. 14
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. ...
  9. 30
5. Way more balanced than reach.
Halo 5 is great, but Reach was just such a break through it stands out as the halo game that brought the next gen halo gameplay in to view. It's cool though because Halo 5 kinda brings back that feeling. At least I think anyway.
Reach had my 2nd least favorite MP in the series. Customs and forge were its only sellers for me and for the love of god -Yoink- armor lock. For that alone I voted Halo 5
Do not purposely bypass the profanity filter.

Spoiler:
Show
steele330 wrote:
I love how people act like reach was a good game yet when that "game" came out the community hated it more than cancer.

Let me just list the main sins of reach. ( not including campaign)

Slower movement speed. Armour abilities. Armour Lock. Haemorrhage Spam. Forge maps all look the same. Armour Locke. Hemmorage Spam. Sword base lift room. Elite slayer.

Halo 5 main sin is really just the lack of stuff. When the gametypes and playlists release it will be amazing.
Wow, really. Halo 5 has less nodes of personalization, exploits it's casual gaming demographic with the REQ system for more cash, alienated Master Chief as a protagonist (3 out of 15 mission as Master Chief, WTF 343), and didn't deliver claimed content upon release.
Also, you can't list repeated sins for Reach. Hemmorage Spam counts as one, not two. Plus Armor Lock is the same as Armor Abilities. And finally, a sin needs to be factual, not opinionated. Armor Abilities can be seen as a good thing. Elite Slayer could be seen as something enjoyable. Debateable things are not sins.
This guy has the right idea right here
Thank goodness Halo 5 is actually winning. It seems like in every halo video on youtube the comment section is filled with a bunch of people / casuals praising Reach for silly reasons as one of if not the best in the series. Truth be told the gameplay mechanics of Halo: Reach were pretty bad from a competitive perspective. Other than invasion which was just for fun it literally had the worst multiplayer of the series. No, the forge was not as great as everyone else made it out to be either. Making certain gametypes compatible with maps was an absolute pain and there was only 1 map ever for forge with monotone objects. And the campaign was good in my opinion but just not correct with the lore really.

MLG and many competitive players literally dropped Halo BECAUSE of Reach, and Bungie just straight up refused to change the bloom LARGE MASSES were complaining about and being stubborn -Yoinks!-. Only at the end of its lifespan when 343 took over, did they actually change the game, and it was too late at that point. Although we already see 343 listens more to the community. Didn't like Bloom? Fixed .... Didn't like loadouts / abilitys? Fixed.
Reach. Best design, Forge was astounding (I still can't believe how it was even possible five years ago on vastly inferior hardware than now), Firefight, epic large-scale Campaign (with the best ending in Halo), SPLIT-SCREEN/LAN, map variety, deep customization, Spartans v. Elites, etc.

Was it perfect? Hell no; Bloom was a bit too strong and I have no -Yoinking!- idea why Armor Lock wasn't cut. But Reach was a vast improvement to the franchise in almost every way. It just seemed much more focused on being a fun game with a little something for everyone than Halo 5 IMO.
Reach, simply because it had a fluid story line and the multiplayer actually worked.
Halo 5 has potential to be the best console shooter ever when it's said and done. Right now all the content isn't there but matchmaking and gameplay are pretty amazing. When BTB, more maps and Forge are there, I have a hard time imagining any previous Halo will stack up to Halo 5 online.
Benti86 wrote:
5 has better gameplay, but Reach blows it out of the water everywhere else (forge, customs, armor customization, campaign, firefight etc)
Lol what? Reach forge wasn't all that good at all. Halo 5 forge from the looks of it will be MILES better, and we won't only have 1 map the entire life of the game, but several.
Which game do you guys think is better?

*These are some of the things we can compare but I want to see what your lists are, this is just an example*

Halo reach: has more game types, has armor affects, Nameplates, split screen and more overall variety of customization options for the Spartan and Elite.

Halo 5: has req packs, bigger population, new characters in campaign, and 343i to help add new things to multiplayer like maps, playlists etc
This is ridiculous.
Its like comparing a Toyota Supra to a Mercedes Benz C63
Thank goodness Halo 5 is actually winning. It seems like in every halo video on youtube the comment section is filled with a bunch of people / casuals praising Reach for silly reasons as one of if not the best in the series. Truth be told the gameplay mechanics of Halo: Reach were pretty bad from a competitive perspective. Other than invasion which was just for fun it literally had the worst multiplayer of the series. No, the forge was not as great as everyone else made it out to be either. Making certain gametypes compatible with maps was an absolute pain and there was only 1 map ever for forge with monotone objects. And the campaign was good in my opinion but just not correct with the lore really.

MLG and many competitive players literally dropped Halo BECAUSE of Reach, and Bungie just straight up refused to change the bloom LARGE MASSES were complaining about and being stubborn -Yoinks!-. Only at the end of its lifespan when 343 took over, did they actually change the game, and it was too late at that point. Although we already see 343 listens more to the community. Didn't like Bloom? Fixed .... Didn't like loadouts / abilitys? Fixed.
slvr cobra wrote:
Reach. Best design, Forge was astounding (I still can't believe how it was even possible five years ago on vastly inferior hardware than now), Firefight, epic large-scale Campaign (with the best ending in Halo), SPLIT-SCREEN/LAN, map variety, deep customization, Spartans v. Elites, etc.

Was it perfect? Hell no; Bloom was a bit too strong and I have no -Yoinking!- idea why Armor Lock wasn't cut. But Reach was a vast improvement to the franchise in almost every way. It just seemed much more focused on being a fun game with a little something for everyone than Halo 5 IMO.
Bungie went out with a bang, I do agree with most of your points though. Halo 5 is really too new to say but so far is much more content than Halo: Reach.
Halo 5
Reach was maybe the worst in the series so halo 5 is easily better.
The hardest thing about comparing the two right now is there is a lack of forge at the moment in H5 and Reach had forge and a file browser system. The maps were okay, and competitive play was eh but it was a decent game. Halo 5 has the ability to trump Reach in every aspect, the game is more balanced and it also didn't get dumped by one game company and picked up by another halfway through its life like Reach did.
Halo Reach was awesome, but Halo 5 is beast.
Reach was really good but Halo 5 is better...
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 12
  4. 13
  5. 14
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. ...
  9. 30