<![CDATA[Halo Reach?]]>I know it's a 360 game but I'm thinking about talking my dad into buying it for me cause I miss playing Halo and it looks pretty sweet. Even though I don't really like the 360 controller now after using the PS3 controller for so long xD

]]>http://localhost:4567/topic/2816/halo-reachRSS for NodeSat, 13 Jun 2026 21:03:07 GMTWed, 15 Sep 2010 04:51:29 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 03:27:12 GMT]]>Halo: Reach > COD even though you can't compare the two because Aliens > Other Countries' soldiers so bleh. There is no Sci-fi aspect to the COD series.

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30751http://localhost:4567/post/30751Thu, 30 Sep 2010 03:27:12 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Thu, 30 Sep 2010 03:20:25 GMT]]>you are right except halo 2 wasnt a 360 game it was a normal xbox game.

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30750http://localhost:4567/post/30750Thu, 30 Sep 2010 03:20:25 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:25:47 GMT]]>ihave played all halo games bar reach.

i played halo 1 and thought it was amazing their is no denying that its was the reason the xbox console sold soo many copies.
Halo 2 almost as good but safe to say the original is always better in most cases and again with how it ended it was the reason the xbox360 sold so many copies cause every1 wanted to play halo 3.

I played halo 3 and noticed something nothing had change from the last 2 it was the same and that just bored me looked like they hadnt even tried to do anything.
Reach might be an amazing game but like nate said cant compare it to the likes of cod and mgs.

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30745http://localhost:4567/post/30745Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:25:47 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Wed, 22 Sep 2010 07:23:40 GMT]]>@Clowd:

im so pro at multiplayer too!!

Same, I have a screen shot of my Rank 13th in the world 😜

Happy B-day for the other day btw Clowd!

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30720http://localhost:4567/post/30720Wed, 22 Sep 2010 07:23:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:42:50 GMT]]>the story is awesome and what a epic ending 🙂

and im so pro at multiplayer too!!

*burp

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30716http://localhost:4567/post/30716Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:42:50 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:11:11 GMT]]>Well said Nate, MGS' has gotten quite a few perfect reviews, scoring 100% a few times if I recall, getting a 10 on IGN and such; Not a game to knock at all lol

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30698http://localhost:4567/post/30698Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:11:11 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:41:32 GMT]]>@Skittbiker:

but COD and MGS cannot live up to the halo franchise.

ps: i'm not a fanboy.

Ha.

In terms of story MGS blows Halo out of the water. (1998)
In terms of Multi-player COD blows Halo out of the water. (sales figures)

I have played all these games (bar halo reach, which I have yet to play)
Halo is fun, but not as good as Call of duty, and does not have me on the edge of my seat like MGS had.

@Nite:

well considering all people play halo for is the multiplayer then its like a hundred times better because MGS4's multiplayer is terrible.

It wasnt that bad, they decided not to become a generic shooter, MGS isn't re-nounded for its multi-player 😜

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30688http://localhost:4567/post/30688Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:41:32 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:12:33 GMT]]>@Nite:

well considering all people play halo for is the multiplayer then its like a hundred times better because MGS4's multiplayer is terrible.

**Yet the single-player is downright amazing lol

But yeah, Reach did look pretty good, maybe I will play it one day, who knows.**

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30686http://localhost:4567/post/30686Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:12:33 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 19:43:40 GMT]]>I want an xbox soo bad… just to play 2 games on it. Americas Army 3 & Halo 1 2 3 Reach.... but im saving money to buy an RM250cc Suzuki dirtbike.

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30685http://localhost:4567/post/30685Sun, 19 Sep 2010 19:43:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 16:35:11 GMT]]>Reach is alotta fun. the campaign was great, co-op campaign is fun as hell. all the new gameplay modes and gameplay modes they ported over from other halo versions are quite exciting. The multiplayer and competition aspect of the game has one of the best i've seen. practically the pioneer of matchmaking. They put it right there in front of you; If you want to play competitively(arena mode, which will be used for seasonal MLG playlists), or just for fun, which would most likely be played when you just want to have a good time or have a couple friends over and are playing on the same TV. It's a really well rounded game, as Dale said, they put all the famed features from previous halo games into Reach. I'm sorry, but COD and MGS cannot live up to the halo franchise.

ps: i'm not a fanboy.

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30681http://localhost:4567/post/30681Sun, 19 Sep 2010 16:35:11 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 16:11:17 GMT]]>Halo: Reach is great…so don't try and say it sucks without playing it yourself.

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30680http://localhost:4567/post/30680Sun, 19 Sep 2010 16:11:17 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:33:16 GMT]]>Yep.. i herd that the game sucked.

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30677http://localhost:4567/post/30677Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:33:16 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 06:38:36 GMT]]>well considering all people play halo for is the multiplayer then its like a hundred times better because MGS4's multiplayer is terrible.

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30676http://localhost:4567/post/30676Sun, 19 Sep 2010 06:38:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 19:38:41 GMT]]>@skittbiker:

we dont take kindly to your kind round her'.

**lol

But is it as good as MGS4…**

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30669http://localhost:4567/post/30669Sat, 18 Sep 2010 19:38:41 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 23:10:49 GMT]]>we dont take kindly to your kind round her'.

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30661http://localhost:4567/post/30661Fri, 17 Sep 2010 23:10:49 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:31:45 GMT]]>no because halo 1 didn't have online.

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30655http://localhost:4567/post/30655Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:31:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:23:41 GMT]]>@Nite:

the game is amazing and they took the best from each game and just combined them into one.

So they just remade Halo 1 and left it at that? 😄

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30653http://localhost:4567/post/30653Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:23:41 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:52:02 GMT]]>the game is amazing and they took the best from each game and just combined them into one.

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30646http://localhost:4567/post/30646Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:52:02 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:22:56 GMT]]>@Bronco:

If you actually played Halo you would know that each game is very different…

Hes an Xbox 360 Fanboy ¬.¬"

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30645http://localhost:4567/post/30645Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:22:56 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:33:39 GMT]]>If you actually played Halo you would know that each game is very different…

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30644http://localhost:4567/post/30644Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:33:39 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:19:24 GMT]]>Its halo, so just like them all their the exactly the same as the first halo no ifferent, which just makes it utterly boring.

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30643http://localhost:4567/post/30643Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:19:24 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Halo Reach? on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:04:34 GMT]]>It's awesome…and I'm beast at it.

]]>http://localhost:4567/post/30640http://localhost:4567/post/30640Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:04:34 GMT