Is Halo Reach the most disappointing sequel ever?

i dont understand developers, they spend years trying to perfect their formula than they throw it out the window. halo 3 was great game but halo reach with bloom, slower speed, no bleedthrough etc. just seems like a step backward. reminds me of gears of war 2 but epic, to their credit, have made for that mess with gears of war 3 one of the best multiplayer game i have ever played.

think that honor still goes to DMC2lawlessx

Damn it!! beat me to it :x

FAIL... Halo Reach is a prequel

unless you think The Phantom Menace was a sequel to Return of the Jedi

sequel? dont you mean prequel?

No thats killzone 3.

Ultima 8, Mount and Blade: With Fire and Sword, Deus Ex: Invisible War, Thief 3, Civilization 5, DMC2 would like to have a word with you, I am sure there are plenty of more disappointing sequels, but those are at thet top of my head.

sequel? dont you mean prequel?

WilliamRLBaker

I win

you mean prequel.

FAIL... Halo Reach is a prequel

moistsandwich

awesome

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

sequel? dont you mean prequel?

moistsandwich

I win

Singleplayer was far better then Halo 3. Multiplayer I feel was a step back.

Still though. I have a sealed copy of KZ3 I've yet to play. Maybe i'll see which is the worse sequel.

No thats killzone 3.

VensInferno

so true :9

Ultima 8, Mount and Blade: With Fire and Sword, Deus Ex: Invisible War, Thief 3, Civilization 5, DMC2 would like to have a word with you, I am sure there are plenty of more disappointing sequels, but those are at thet top of my head.

Maroxad

my heart aches for that game. what on earth were they thinking?

I vote for KZ3 and dead rising 2.TheGuardian03

I agree. it's still a good game, but no where near kz2. :(

I think we're all forgetting about a game called inFamous 2 that scored a measly 7.5 here.

[spoiler] I really wish the internet had a sarcasm detector so I don't have to put these spoiler tags. [/spoiler]

think that honor still goes to DMC2lawlessx

I think it's Splinter Cell Conviction. Looked so promising. EliteM0nk3y

i think conviction is amazing but then again i wasnt really a fan of the series so i can understand why people will be disappointed by it

I think it's Splinter Cell Conviction. Looked so promising. EliteM0nk3y

I think it's Splinter Cell Conviction. Looked so promising. EliteM0nk3y

If you had played any of the prior SC games then you would've known that Conviction would turn out to be utter garbage.

Although what else is new? Ubisoft has crapped on all of their previously great franchises by moving to the console target audience.

FAIL... Halo Reach is a prequel

unless you think The Phantom Menace was a sequel to Return of the Jedi

moistsandwich

it is the next installment in the series multiplayer wise, that what i really meant

it is the next installment in the series multiplayer wise, that what i really meant

ghostwarrior786

sure you did - but look at it like this: Reach scored a 9.5 here on GS and has an average score of 9.2, was wildly nominated for Best Shooter (which it won here) and GOTY (among others), all the while keeping true to a formula that was created in 2001 or before

If that is a "disappointing" game then the games that had preceeded it must have been pretty damned amazing.

[QUOTE="ghostwarrior786"]

it is the next installment in the series multiplayer wise, that what i really meant

R3FURBISHED

sure you did - but look at it like this: Reach scored a 9.5 here on GS and has an average score of 9.2, was wildly nominated for Best Shooter and GOTY (amoung others), all the while keeping true to a formula that was created in 2001 or before

If that is a "disappointing" game then the games that had preceeded it must have been pretty damned amazing.

[QUOTE="Maroxad"]

Ultima 8, Mount and Blade: With Fire and Sword, Deus Ex: Invisible War, Thief 3, Civilization 5, DMC2 would like to have a word with you, I am sure there are plenty of more disappointing sequels, but those are at thet top of my head.

lawlessx

my heart aches for that game. what on earth were they thinking?

For most of the part, With Fire and Sword was NOT made by Taleworlds, most of the game were made by two other companies. These 2 companies not only had a different design philosophy from that of Taleworlds (hence the game appearantly sacrificing a lot of the freedom that was a staple from the first 2), but they were also seemed to lack the brilliance as well.

Unfortunately this seems to be a problem with so many games out there when they have a different development team compared to that of the original creators (sure we have our Metroid Primes, but for most of the part the end product ends up as nothing more than a let down).

[QUOTE="R3FURBISHED"]

[QUOTE="ghostwarrior786"]

it is the next installment in the series multiplayer wise, that what i really meant

lawlessx

sure you did - but look at it like this: Reach scored a 9.5 here on GS and has an average score of 9.2, was wildly nominated for Best Shooter and GOTY (amoung others), all the while keeping true to a formula that was created in 2001 or before

If that is a "disappointing" game then the games that had preceeded it must have been pretty damned amazing.

So what you're saying is my opinion for halo reach being an disappointment is wrong? Because it it scored an 9+ and was nominated for afew awards?

lawlessx

If someone was disappointed in Reach than they have either been disappointed in the Halo series for a while now or just picked up Reach and hadn't touched the Halo series at all until Reach (which one would think that it would be better because of that as we are dealing with one of the most refined and content-laden shooters on the market)

...? You serious? Halo reach is amazing, not even close to a dissapointing sequal. People complain about anything, if they didn't cahnge anything people would complain.

Uh, no. I thought it was really good. My 2nd favorite in the series right behind CE.

No mention of Resistance 2? That game pretty much laughed at anyone who enjoyed the first, and then urinated all over their hopes and expectations?

Halo 3 was awful compared to Reach, Reach is probably the best competitive multiplayer out now.

[QUOTE="ghostwarrior786"]

it is the next installment in the series multiplayer wise, that what i really meant

R3FURBISHED

sure you did - but look at it like this: Reach scored a 9.5 here on GS and has an average score of 9.2, was wildly nominated for Best Shooter (which it won here) and GOTY (among others), all the while keeping true to a formula that was created in 2001 or before

If that is a "disappointing" game then the games that had preceeded it must have been pretty damned amazing.

i dont honestly care if a game scores well on this site or any other for that matter i think the community preception is generally more accurate. go to bungie forums and you will see countless threads of people complaining about the same things i dont like.

I wonder how much time these 'reviewers' actually spend on multiplayer and if they have experience in the previous installment because bungie has made a radical depature from the tried and tested and clearly people are not happy. just compare halo 3 daily usage with halo reach and you will see what i mean

i dont understand developers, they spend years trying to perfect their formula than they throw it out the window. halo 3 was great game but halo reach with bloom, slower speed, no bleedthrough etc. just seems like a step backward. reminds me of gears of war 2 but epic, to their credit, have made for that mess with gears of war 3 one of the best multiplayer game i have ever played.

ghostwarrior786

[QUOTE="lawlessx"]

So what you're saying is my opinion for halo reach being an disappointment is wrong? Because it it scored an 9+ and was nominated for afew awards?

R3FURBISHED

If someone was disappointed in Reach than they have either been disappointed in the Halo series for a while now or just picked up Reach and hadn't touched the Halo series at all until Reach (which one would think that it would be better because of that as we are dealing with one of the most refined and content-laden shooters on the market)

oh really? well here are my halo 2 stats

http://www.bungie.net/Stats/PlayerStatsHalo2.aspx?player=WholeLAWLESS

and my halo 3 stats

http://www.bungie.net/Stats/Halo3/Default.aspx?player=lawlessx001

I was a huge fan of the halo series since halo:CE released and was an active memeber in the halo union back in the early years.

I wonder how much time these 'reviewers' actually spend on multiplayer and if they have experience in the previous installment because bungie has made a radical depature from the tried and tested and clearly people are not happy. just compare halo 3 daily usage with halo reach and you will see what i mean

ghostwarrior786

In the last 24 hours:

671,545 Players Online

1,519,252 Games Played

...I don't remember what Halo 3 was pulling in daily(in say 2008 ) nor what Halo 2 was pulling in daily way back in, say, 2005.

from what ive played, Reach seemed more polished and content heavy than H3 ... it was pretty decent, i don't why it died so quick.

from what ive played, Reach seemed more polished and content heavy than H3 ... it was pretty decent, i don't why it died so quick.

rasengan2552

black ops says hi....which is sad

from what ive played, Reach seemed more polished and content heavy than H3 ... it was pretty decent, i don't why it died so quick.

rasengan2552

its dying because bungie refuse to acknowledge the fact that majority of the people who played Halo 3 hate Halo reach. I dont understand why they havn't released a title update to address all the issues.

I thought Halo Reach was... FAR better than Halo 3. :?Stevo_the_gamer

thats what the lemmings will have you believe