Reach has one of the worst multiplayer modes I've ever played

I don't understand how they messed it up, considering Halo 3 had a fun multiplayer with only a few issues, but they managed to mess it up so bad in Reach. A lot of the maps, the bigger ones to be more specific, are horribly designed to the point where you'll have a gigantic chance of losing depending on which side you start on.

Take for example the Boneyard map: one team starts out in a closed structure that makes it almost impossible to be killed upon respawn, but the other team starts out in the open and are vulnerable to multiple angles on respawn. I played a game of SWAT once where I was on the open spot, and the other team easily took position on two higher leveled structures staring down on our spawn points... Nearly most of our team got wiped out a second after every spawn.

Same goes for the Paradiso map. In the center, there's this giant mountain you can get up to and basically snipe anywhere. What's worse is that it's easy for the sniper to take cover from shots coming from the ground, so the sniper has a huge advantage.

It seems common sense has been thrown out the window with Bungie, because there's really a lot of questionable changes and design choices made with Reach's multiplayer: playing as Elites has been limited, spawn points are silly and downright stupid because you can pop up right in front of an enemy tank or in a sniper's aim multiple times with no problem, maps are structured where certain gametypes are almost unplayable on them, and specific maps have weapons or vehicles not suited for them.

I've played a number of multiplayer modes on the Xbox 360 over the years, and none of them has given me this much frustration ever. The more I play Reach's multiplayer, the more it feels like I payed $60 just to be stressed out. Thank God Halo 3's multiplayer is still up, I can always just go back to that for some fun.

I can't be the only one that feels this way about the game? Because I'm having a hard time believing everyone is enjoying the bizarre choices. :/

Comments 7

Suskie Sep 18, 2010

I don't play online; the experience I've had with Reach's multiplayer has been local, which is probably why I haven't had the same issues. And even then, most of my time was been spent playing Firefight.

zigfried Sep 18, 2010

Pickhut, I don't do the whole multiplayer thing, but you're not the only one who's complaining about Reach screwing things up.

//Zig

EmP Staff Sep 18, 2010

Now I have beaten the game, I shall shortly delve into the world of online.

honestgamer Staff Sep 18, 2010

Just started playing. I haven't touched the single-player campaign, but I've played multi-player and so far so good. Though the first match I played was Elite Deathmatch (or something elite, anyway, and everyone was thrown against everyone). I only got 9 kills there, which was about 9 more than I expected to get. Otherwise, it's been a constant barrage of "Infection" games. People just keep voting until there's an "Infection" option and then they go for that. It must be everyone's favorite or something. I admit that it can be kind of fun and I love that I get to run around gutting people with my sword (I never have a gun for long), but I hope that there will be more variety in match types that players choose as the newness wears off.

dementedhut Blogger Sep 18, 2010

Almost every lobby I'm in wants to play Team Snipers so bad. That, or SWAT. Basically, anything that doesn't require actually getting up close with anyone else. :/

I think I'll head online and try my luck again. I am enjoying the multi-player, after all. Maybe someday I'll play through the story campaign, too.

While I still think multiplayer as a whole is terrible, it's at its best when you're on confined maps. They don't have a lot of terrible respawns (but there are still some), so you won't get killed the moment you re-enter the match, and the map designs are actually much better than the bigger ones.