lol i almost thought i was playin the same game when i played arena but imma have to give the win to halo 5. such a better game. not to say reach is bad, but 5 just appeals to me better
I liked the way they did customization in Reach. The fact that you knew what to do to get certain pieces or armor was nice instead of the randomness of the req system. The armor also looks better in Reach.
Halo reach was a game that was as if you could really put yourself into it all from the campaign that allowed you to put your own custom Spartan into it so it really felt as though you were a important piece of the plot and major part of the over all contributation to the build of the history. Also the new type of game play was a new jump into what boundaries halo could reach with assassinations and the invasion game type, and we can all not forget the major leap in customization for ourselves in multiplayer with the surge in amount of armor we could equip. Inand all ways halo reach will always be a classic and be remembered for even though we have now reached a new chapter in the halo game line we can't forget our roots and how that has affected the games that are made now.
Halo Reach for multiple reasons. The campaign was fantastic and something Halo fans have been wanting for a long time. The new additions to multiplayer such as armor abilities were a huge game changer that attracted tons of players. The depth in Spartan Customization was incredible. Something I wish would have carried over into Halo 4 and Halo 5
Here is how I stand I favor Reach, I think 5 has a better multiplayer, but Reach has more customization, more game modes, a better campaign, and launched with forge. By the end and all the content is released I believe 5 will pass Reach, but until then I stand by Bungie's swan song.
That has to do with the constraints of the console, not the game itself. Besides, I would much rather have "blur-ness" than stuttering player and enemy models like Halo 5 has (that being said, I do appreciate the 60fps, and I understand that the dynamic model frame-rate and resolution was necessary to make that possible; I'm just saying that if you want to compare technical visual issues, I would definitely say that Reach is by far the superior).XxOblivionxX97 wrote:Halo Reach had too much blur-ness!
umm there's prometheans and covenant in warzone...DutchGuardianNL wrote:Look the only reason we have no invasion and why we won't get it is because 343 Industries wants halo to have a realistic story background. Like why COD players are being sarcastic about: You can jump 2 metres high, like that is more realistic than COD. Yeah we can do that, because of you're being a spartan, normal marines aren't able of doing that. Just like having a shield on their armor. Anyways since Halo 4 multiplayer has become a simulation. Just like in Halo 5 is said when the match is getting started: "running simulation". So that's why you are fighting against ONLY other spartans I guess, sounds pretty logic to me just because you are playing as a spartan and practice by simulations. Still you could make up a story why you're could be playing as a elite.
Renegades of Phobos Halo Reach was fun and exciting. A lot was experimented with and explored upon. Bungie really showed what they learned and they wanted to send Halo off with a bang. They could have done a lot better in a lot but the game was a fantastic time with more memories to be had than many other games than are even out today. On the other hand Halo 5 is bigger better and has so much more to offer in a multiplayer perspective than ever before. There is much that is still needed for example, forge and customization options. Besides what is already on its way, I believe Halo 5 is an excellent entry into an already thriving series. MrRalleigh