Ballin.

DarkerKamikaze

Sweet Ray Allen gif, he's tha man, hope he breaks Millers record tonight!

[QUOTE="AlMar12345"]

I consider it shallow, the ranks count for nothing other than bragging rights, the different armors count for nothing other than looks. Basically the first time you play Reach online won't be any different than the last time you play Reach online. The armor abilities don't do much for me basically because I think sprint should be a standard instead of having to waste your ability on it, and thats it, for those reasons and maybe more I think the games multiplayer is shallow.

Ninja-Hippo

Hell it's about as deep and feature-packed a console multiplayer as anyone could ever ask for.

Perhaps you're right, I just got tired of the game very fast, so to me it seemed as if it was lacking depth, therefore I used the term shallow, sorry if I offended anyone

[QUOTE="alfredooo"]

[QUOTE="AlMar12345"]

The fact that Halo Reach got a 9.5 and has a bad story, bad characters, and shallow multiplayer backs it up pretty well

Dead-Memories

Lets see.... which has the MLG playlist?

Halo series has always been on the pro circuit, only in SW it is considered "shallow" :lol:

I'm coming from the fact that I read the Halo books and felt the battle of Reach should have been the biggest, baddest, most epic, thing in gaming, and then when I played the game I never felt like I was in a huge battle for the fate of humanities second earth, I just felt like I was a soldier getting sent on retrieval and defense missions, also if I'm not mistaken Cortana was in existence before Reach and the Pillar of Autumn was in the battle in space, not docked on the planet. The characters weren't deep to me either, sure you could tell they had a past with eachother, but they didn't develop much or anything. They basically all talk a little bit until it's there turn to die or sacrifice themselves, and then they're gone, no more depth and no more development. Those are my reasons do with them what you will.

[QUOTE="Kahuna_1"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Halo Reach has shallow multiplayer? Are we just saying things and hoping they turn out to be true? Ninja-Hippo

You would hope people would at least be specific to show they actually played the games they bash.

I consider it shallow, the ranks count for nothing other than bragging rights, the different armors count for nothing other than looks. Basically the first time you play Reach online won't be any different than the last time you play Reach online. The armor abilities don't do much for me basically because I think sprint should be a standard instead of having to waste your ability on it, and thats it, for those reasons and maybe more I think the games multiplayer is shallow.

[QUOTE="AlMar12345"]

The fact that Halo Reach got a 9.5 and has a bad story, bad characters, and shallow multiplayer backs it up pretty well

Sp4rtan_3

I don't really care that the game "flopped," I'm still gonna buy it and enjoy it, I just care that we all make such big deals about these things. I'm guilty of doing that too, but I truly believe that after playing Halo Reach a bunch it deserved something like an 8.5 basically for the same reasons they gave KZ3 an 8.5, yet the games have a 1.0 difference in their score. Just thought I'd speak my mind, isn't that what SW is all about.

The fact that Halo Reach got a 9.5 and has a bad story, bad characters, and shallow multiplayer backs it up pretty well

got it on day one and think its great!

San Andreas hands down for me

Great game, stop hating

looks cool