Bloom was just a visual indicator of something Halo already did.

about the AA I wouldn't consider them gimmicky, but also, Reach's my favorite Halo. =P

Compare the BR or pistol to the DMR...halo never did that before. Not in those type of guns.
So you don't think holograms, armor lock, and jetpacks are gimmicky? In other words you think they are a realistic addition to the game that improves gameplay?

Imo it slows down and overcomplicates gameplay, but that's my opinion. And yeah I also don't find them very realistic...!

Check the tags for Halo 1 and Halo 2 and you will see that bullet bloom already exists in these. Halo 3 has it aswell on those weapons you mentioned. I just tested it on my xbox with a split screen game. I actually liked the bloom on most of the weapons in terms of how the crosshair changes. The ugliest was the needler and DMR but the pistol and assault rifle were perfect.
Edited by Jesse on Aug 24, 2011 at 02:08 PM

Spartans are realistic? Giant plasma cannons are realistic? Awesome! Find me a banshee so I can test it!

E: I realised somebody made a fake ghost video so I edited my post to take away your opportunity :P
Edited by Jaz on Aug 24, 2011 at 02:18 PM

Bloom in Reach is way more than any other halo games. Most of the other bloom in Halo games stayed inside the ridicule, now with Reach it blows up. It's just sad that Bungie went gimmicky to match up with the typical shooter today.

This is true.

god, I hate it when people say like "oh! are spartans realistic?! durrrrr....." No, but a human running and jumping is realistic.

Oh well, everyone has their opinion, I don't want to derail this thread anymore than I already have though. I thought I remember hearing somewhere that this game was going to have weapons that were editable on the fly, similar to crysis?
Edited by d4rfnader on Aug 24, 2011 at 03:49 PM

Uggh, enough of the Reach/ Halo 3 blathering, both games are still good regardless of everyone's opinions, Lets talk about Halo 4, though when you get right down to it, there isn't much info to talk about :\

I think halo 4 should be a repackaged Halo CE.

wait what halo isnt realistic?

Editor's note: Sorry for bigass message, internet died while writting so I kept adding some rant. Feel free to Tl;Dr

Reach's campaign was terrible. Halo 1 was awesome, somewhat indie.. I liked the doubt throughout it, learning a whole new world, whole new universe coupled with brilliantly written books;Fall of Reach, The Flood ( alright, not so brilliant) and Operation First Strike.



Halo 2 was rising many hopes. Halo 2 is the one that basically invented modern multiplayer. It's campaign was brilliant, innovative but all in all, only 1/4th of the lenght it should have been notably because Each level is split in 2 ( Cairo is 3 maps all in all,Outskirt,Metropolis= 1 level, Delta Halo and Regret= 1 level, Uprising and the final level=1... + bungie cut many other levels from development. Basically, to me Halo 2 was the game with the most unused potential. Floodzone was an awesome idea and everything but as with many things in Halo 2 ( and getting worse in following Halo games) the storytelling could hardly get you to care.


Halo 3 was to me like a completed Halo 2. Lots of leftaways were added such as the mongoose, new engine allowed for a new level of graphics, epic sized sky boxes and everything. Although the Halo 3 announcement trailer was awesome storytelling and mood wise, the rest of the game couldn't follow. It was evident that despite a good story, bungie neglected the Singleplayer. The graphics went down by a bunch from the trailer to the actual game. I loved the multiplayer, it was challenging, full of possibilities and Halo 2's networking flaws were corrected. Of course, glitching and exploration was nothing compared to Halo 2 so I lost some possibly fun things there. It was overall, an awesome game.


Halo Reach had a wonderful premise. A new engine maxing the 360's capabilities, a setting which we all loved from the Fall of Reach and at last, a squad of Spartans to fight with. The reality is that despite the engine's ability, the art was restricted mostly to Sky Boxes. The environments were dull, the Elites never looked as bad as this even to the point of ''rewriting'' the cannon for Elite rank species to which we had all grown use to. Come on, who would actually do that on purpose? In Reach when I saw Elites I had no reflex knowing what rank they were. In Halo 1, I knew the ''Red'' were a bit better, gold were strong and black were specops. In Halo 2, they beautified the Existing system adding new armor variants that added depth to the elite society and in Halo 3, well for some reason we didn't see much of elites but when we did, we could still recognize.

now back to why Reach wasn't too good. The Story. Spartan IIIs? Come on. Bungie could have read the Fall of Reach which it seems they didn't and they would have had all they needed to create their so called ''military campaign''. Remember, they had the arrogance to claim they built a whole military campaign around reach. Obviously, all they did was rewrite what we knew of Reach. Is it their right? Yes. They could, however, have done like other Franchise who instead incorporated ideas from their book writers into the main plot such as Mass Effect's illusive man who comes straight from a book.

Now apart from that, the storytelling is one of the worse I've ever seen. First and foremost, you feel absolutely nothing for your character. Seriously, you're playing a player that is barely mentioned in the story, whom you barely see and is basically your perfect nobody. You cannot at any single moment feel anything for this Spartan III. Then of course, in the same area, you don't feel anything for your squad mates. Nothing at all is done throughout the campaign to flesh out your relation with them. No intricate story, no flash back, nothing. The only one you begin feeling something for is probably the big Jorge.


The story pace and flow gives you no idea what is going on, what reach is, what it means for Humanity, why it would be worth saving. The only times you meet civilians they are either retarded redneck farmers or just dumb AIs running. Nothing like the concept art that shows the Spartans in the midst of a village driving an evac and holding off the covenant. One of the worse moment, is the cinematic where you see about 30 warthogs driving to hit the enemy. Not only was it poorly executed but it was also ''Too much''. Really, is that the ''We're launching counter attack with all we got'' ? I mean, if all we have is 30 jeeps better all just go cook some Emu.


The rest if the cinematics was well produced, interesting use of Mocap and all mixed with, again, a terrible storytelling such as Kat being shot in the head randomly or a Spartan disappearing with Halsey with no actual explanation on it's destination or future.

There are indeed epic moments in the campaign, visually at least, just as much as bungie's total lazyness is apparent. Integrating Multiplayer Levels to SP? What a Terrible Idea! The contrary could have been interesting but for now, it's clear they simply slapped MP maps into SP environment where the old Idea was to build MP maps with art that reminded of the SP levels such as Halo 2's colossus or Halo CE's Boarding Action.

What is clear however is that bungie definately decided that Multiplayer was the priority and I wouldn't be surprised if their future title simply had no single player. I know commercially they wouldn't but truth is, they are letting their SP starve.
Edited by OpsY on Aug 24, 2011 at 09:31 PM

Well, we will see about halo 4 at HALO FEST this weekend! hopefully it will be good.

I wish they use original Halo voice actors for those returning (Bowes and Taylor)

I think from the halo 4 I recognized chief's voice, but cortana's sounded like someone different.

Gimmicky, unrealistic can be interpreted in many ways. It's all the same, only the names will change. Call it what you want, it's just outright dumb (a bit like you).

Hmm, I think you need to chill out a little Opsy :P

I have to say that there are a few points here that I feel need to be discussed.

1. The canon of Halo has always centered around the games because they are made specifically by Bungie, where as none of the other canon is. Therefore it seems to me that Bungie has the ultimate say in what canon they decide to change when making a new game. But even with that, the differences between the canon of the book, and that of the game are not that severe. Besides a couple obvious ones, the vast majority of the two story lines do not intersect what so ever. This leaves it up to conjecture that the two may have gone on simultaneously during the course of the game. If you are so concerned by the inclusion of Spartan III's then you should also rule out a number of the books in the series that include them as well, as they are a part of the canon that surfaces fairly often.

2. Regarding the differences in graphics in Halo 3 that you mentioned. I sincerely hope you aren't speaking of the CGI trailer in which the MC puts his helmet back on and uses the bubble shield. I presume you are speaking of the other where he walks out of the ruins of the space elevator and looks out over the portal to the ark as the covenant ships fly over him. In this particular case you are wrong. This was actually taken from an early build of the final cutscene in the level "The Storm" and is rendered and created using Halo 3 assets. The only obvious deviation is the reflection of the portal activating in MC's visor.

3. Halo: Reach absolutely lived up to the potential of its new engine and 360 capabilities. As for the Elite armor colors, I had absolutely no trouble discerning between lower and higher ranks. The simple blue and red of the original games is included, as well as the white and gold of in ascending rank, who are usually commanders. Beyond that the only real changes where the Zealot and Ranger armor configurations and ranks, but even then, it isn't difficult to figure out their relative strength, considering the obvious mentions of the strength of zealots in the campaign, as well as the encounter in the first campaign level. The spec ops elites remain the same as in previous games as well. The most major difference with them overall is the armor permutations which were more of an asthetic choice as the art style of the Covenant weapons, vehicles, and soldiers was changed significantly for the game.

4. As far as your character is conscerned, I don't see the issue. I had no problem connecting and feeling emotion for Noble 6, especially in the last two levels of the campaign, as well as Exodus, where he is actually meant to be the focus of the storyline. The final sequence of The Pillar of Autumn, and Lone Wolf where both quite moving for me as the player. I felt the emotions that seemed to be visible in the character.

5. Concerning the other main characters in the story, you seem to have confused a few things. First of all, this is a stand alone addition to the Halo canon, done in one game. Bungie did a perfectly adequate job of introducing the personality of each of the Spartans in Noble team through obvious and more subtle means. Now think back to earlier halo games. If you expected flash backs and background into characters, then you seem to be somewhat off the mark, especially when you consider that the main character of the entire original trilogy, over the course of 3 games, received no more background character information than any of the Spartans in Reach. The fact that the characters in Reach were fleshed out to the degree that they are when compared to characters of the original trilogy, really tells me something, when you consider that those of Halo CE- Halo 3 had 3 entire games in which the player was able to get to know them better.

6. Speaking of the opening cutscene in "Tip of the Spear" I wonder how you managed to overlook all of the falcons just in the cutscene, as well as the massive battle that continues as you break away from it. A never ending stream of warthogs continues in the background, as well as a massive battle in the sky with falcons and banshees, especially with the edition of the frigates and longswords later on, the entire sequence is not just "30 jeeps" its a massive force that is pushing back against the covenant.

7. With regards to the MP to SP conversion issue, I once again to do not see the problem. All the MP maps that were used to develop SP map portions all complimented the game well. There were no glaring gameplay issues caused by it , nor were any of the maps lacking because of it. Take powerhouse for instance, it functioned perfectly adequately as a backdrop for part of the battle in "Nightfall" As well as an excellent multiplayer map, (My personal favorite). There is nothing about it that damages the single player experience, and it connects well enough to the story. None of the campaign locations that started as MP maps have any issues because of their origins. I once again fail to see the issue here, if there were glaring inconsistencies caused by the MP structure of the maps that impeded their function in singleplayer, I might agree with you, but there are none.

I fail to see how Bungie was "Lazy" in the production of this game. The entirely new engine, assets, and improvements in game mechanics such as animations and modeling detail level really do not constitute laziness on the part of Bungie.

To be perfectly honest, using Bungies games as a standard of design for Halo 4 is just not fair in the first place, considering Halo 4 isn't even being developed by Bungie. The only way to really get an idea of just what the comparative quality level is between the two, you and I will have to wait until next year.

But until then, I completely disagree with your characterization of Reach and of past Halo games, and I think I may have cleared up most of the inconsistencies of your rant.

You do realize that this is a thread about Halo 4 right? Not a mod?

It would have been funny if it wasn't sarcasm you quoted :P
Edited by Bobblehob on Aug 25, 2011 at 08:22 AM

I lol'd. Don't say for the last time, because this is the only time.

Agreed he does. Besides, your arguments may satisfy you but they don't satisfy me. I won't go over pointing every single place where you ignored my argument or simply fail to see it as my goal is not to convince anyone of this.

To be honest, you fail to clearly back up your points in the first place, and that is why I replied to them. If you want to present a viewpoint to people, then you should definitely make sure that you have evidence to support your claims. Although I will admit, that alot of this is based solely on opinion, which of course is exempt from objectivity. But a large portion of your arguments are not.

Also, the only point you made that I ignored was one of your first paragraphs referring to halo 2. Other than that, I did not ignore a single point that you made.

Also also, you and tiel both seem to have missed the sarcasm in the top of my post.


Edited by Bobblehob on Aug 25, 2011 at 02:16 PM

Ignore this, it would just cause more problems.
Edited by d4rfnader on Aug 25, 2011 at 03:11 PM

Probably a good idea.

Of course this is My opinion. This is nothing like facts vs facts. I'm stating what I felt was going on throughout the Halo games and what I felt was causing harm. I know I'm not the only one thinking the same and I know you're not the only one thinking the complete contrary.

Don't sund like what you're saying is law or fact. It's your opinion. I contrast with all of yours.

1.) There are plausible reasons for this. ONI is very versatile remember?
2.) Horrible reason outright; they could have, but Reach isn't all lush green hills and what not. The planet had to be terraformed before being used and even more to the point lies that idea that Halo Reach took place in mountainous regions rather than plains.
3.) I disagree here. I felt like there weren't enough enemies at times, though I do agree that PoA's Firefight segment was ridiculous (if not too realistic).
4.) Enough is not said. I enjoy using Armor Abilities (it adds more to gameplay for me) and it keeps the game from monotony.

If there was anything in Reach to criticize it was:
1.) Noble Team in gameplay never felt like Noble Team. I never felt like I was on a team, but more like I just had allies to help me every once and a while. I was never intertwined with Noble Team. Honestly, Bungie could have fixed this and made the game more engaging by creating a manifestation similar to that of Republic Commandos. I really never had a reason to care about my Noble Team allies in combat. They were simply invincible NPCs.
2.) Lack of enemies in levels that were trying to be treated like warzones. Tip of the Spear lacked everything in that last sentence and was monotonous. Sadly, it's one of my favorite aesthetic levels (next to PoA) because there is so much that could be done. Vehicle encounters were done in a shoddy manner and by the time you're at awesome segments it seems that they never last long enough (Falcon segment for instance). I feel this exact same way about Halo 3's The Covenant, so it wasn't really even Reach's deal more than it was Bungie's missing that perfect-enough mark for enjoyment.
3.) Monotony in general plagued Reach. Half of the levels lack creative ways to tackle a level that we haven't done in past Halo games. We've been to points A and B to turn off objectives C and D. We've gone from points A to B to snipe anything that isn't friendly. We've gone from start to finish blowing stuff up with a tank or have holed ourselves up to fight an oncoming enemy onslaught. Halo 3, though story-driven to prevent too much hate, was similar to this as well.

My opinions on Reach:

1: Story sucked. Nuff said, Saying nothing more.
2:Horrible gameplay. It didn't have any of that magic feel that you encountered in the trilogy,like Halo 2 Delta Halo where you pop out at the top of the waterfall. It didn't have the feel.Encounters could get too hard, as in Pillar of Autumn where you arrive at the yard where the massive battle is going on. But then, it could get way too easy, as in Long Night of Solace. Like, seriously, the covenant are way more advanced than us. How can four fighters and a frigate defeat a covenant corvette-a powerful ship in its own right- right under a 28 km long Covenant Supercarrier that is obviously lazy since it hasn't detected you.
3: Bleh environments. No really beautiful or cool. Exceptions being Tip of the Spear, and New Alexandria. Those were pretty cool, especially the cruisers dropping in and blasting the city.
4: Yucky cutscenes. Again, it needs a feeling to it, a final feeling. Where this is the battle that changes the fate of the human race, like in the ending cutscene of The Storm n Halo 3. Man, I usually play that level to watch that cutscene.
5: No team element. Just invisible npcs that try to act bada ss and cool, who can't even drive properly(Kat, I'm talking about you.)

I thought everything in Reach was just okay.In Halo 4,I hope the Flood don't return as a HUGE mob.I don't think it could Onyx,though.It seems unlikely.
Edited by Dumb AI on Mar 11, 2012 at 03:39 PM

im fed up of trying to make sense with people on the waypoint forums. I don't know why I keep going back there.