Halo: Reach Discussion

[Pooky]

Way to assert how bad a game is based off of how one thing affects YOU. And I honestly can't tell apart from the two player models, even with the visors. Honestly I just shoot anything that turns read till it drops and aim higher when I have a precision weapon. Of course, I play Invasion a lot, so I'm accustomed to trying to find every advantage in a battle at every second.

I've only seen you and maybe one other person complain about melee between this and the Bungie.net forums, so if you want a melee fix you'll have to raise enough hell and support to do so over there. Only advice I can give you that will probably not be shoved back in my face because you've tried other options. Just look at this way: It's not nearly as bad as Halo 3's melee system at least.

Every person I know who plays this game thinks the melee attacks are garbage, most don't speak out about it.

Thing is, the melee isn't going to affect you as much when you're playing primarily big team games on large maps (Invasion), but melee whoring is the entire game on small team Slayer and objective matches. It takes no skill to use, it gets your shield off instantly, everyone can use it infinitely, and the only real counter to it is to have a Shotgun (since Sword gets blocked by melee), or kill people before they get close enough (zombie game).

So yes, the multiplayer in Reach is horrible.





e: this isn't related to my main argument, but you strike me as one of those people who think all bad design choices are okay because 'the developers intended it that way'. Sorry, but that's not a valid excuse, especially when considering the longevity of a mutiplayer game over many years. I'm already losing interest in Reach simply because the competitive modes pander to unskilled players, and there's no reward in gameplay terms for being legitimatelly better than your opposition.

"Why bother learning to aim", the newbs say. "I can just sprint-double melee people with no effort at all".