When their primary focus is on campaign, Bungie gets it right(Halo CE).

I won't count ODST in this argument because it was an expansion that was only made by half of the staff. Anyway, Halo CE has the best campaign in the entire series and it's kind of sad because the campaign(story) wasn't exactly something to brag about, albeit it was still a decent enough story for the genre and memorable. Halo CE had the much bigger and better designed levels than the rest, the enemies were better designed, the story had a better sense of an adventure, and the later levels were the most memorable parts in the whole Halo world. It all came to a climax that was satisfying. It was also the longest out of the rest.

Halo 2 had a more diverse story but it was too complicated and uninteresting to care. The levels were poorly designed and were just plain boring. There's not a single level in the H2 campaign where I want to go back to. Halo 3 while better, it seemed to have an uninspired story and it was the final fight yet nothing felt epic about it. Again it didn't have a level where I wanted to go back to.

REACH has the worst campaign out of all of them. Not only was it the shortest, but it was the least satisfying. The last level was also a cheap way of lengthening your campaign experience. All the levels were basically designed for multiplayer and most of the are mp maps. The campaign just felt like an extended version of FF. Poor story, forgettable characters, and incredibly boring dialog.

Anyway, my point is...the path Bungie went after Halo CE was(for people like me) the worst decision they can make. Their team isn't capable of making a balance between mp and campaign. H2-REACH were all terrible(mostly)experiences. If you don't want to believe me then please pop in Halo CE and play the campaign all over again like me(after completing REACH of course) and compare the experience with the rest. Compared to CE the rest just left a horrible taste in my mouth. Whatever their next project is going to be, you get bet it will be mp oriented since that's their specialty from now on.

Well that is your opinion

besides multiplayer is awesome.

I thought it was one of the best campaigns of the halo series.

Reach had the worst campaign?... No way. I agree not that great but nothing.. NOTHING tops the absolute pile of garbage that is Halo 2s campaign.. The most boring.. terribly designed singleplayer maybe ever.. On top of that half the time im running around as some stupid alien that I dont even care about.. ugh.

But I agree it could have been so much better. I mean there wasnt really anything even as exciting as Halo 3s scarab fight. They really didnt push any boundaries or anything with it.. and again I played as a loser spartan that I just didnt care about and had absolutely no attachment to. They could have made up for that by having a better story than the first game but they didnt..Oh well..

no offence to the people that like the halo campaign but imo they have all sucked, halo has never really had an interesting story unless you read the books the only good thing was the final level to halo and halo three those were pretty awesome

but yeah Reachs campaign could have been far more epic than what it was

Personally I loved being the arbiter in halo 2. I loved playing co op on legendary, was such a challenge.

The only Halo campaign I've really spent a long amount of time with was Halo Reach's (I play them at friends' houses, so we usually just do deathmatch/firefight), and...I really don't see what the fuss is about - I can't imagine Reach having the best campaign in the series, simply because it was kinda stale and emotionless (admittedly, co-op completely ruined the game's mood - we spent the entire game taking bets on which cliche would kill each of the characters, and then getting disappointed when we were right, etc.).

Don't get me wrong, the gameplay was fun at the very least, but...I can only imagine that the rest of the series is a hell of a lot better, to get the praise the franchise is known for.

I thought the original Halo: CE campaign was bad. Maybe it's because I played it much later, and it just didn't age well, but I never really found it good at all.

I think Reach is great. Campaign and multiplayer. Don't really see the issue or why so many are complaining about it. I can definitely see fanboys going the "it's overrated" route here in the near future though.

The maps suck, so I hope MP wasn't the main focus.tehsystemwarior

[QUOTE="tehsystemwarior"]The maps suck, so I hope MP wasn't the main focus.bimmy233

[QUOTE="tehsystemwarior"]The maps suck, so I hope MP wasn't the main focus.bimmy233

[QUOTE="tehsystemwarior"]The maps suck, so I hope MP wasn't the main focus.bimmy233

Idk what they were thinking when they decided to make maps that they thought could fit into both single player and multiplayer. It just doesnt work. On singleplayer its fine, but in multiplayer im just like wtf is this. There are no bases, theres no symmetry, this feels like a MW2 map just random geometry everywhere with no construction or order. Idk.. Some of the forge variations are good but everything starts to look like the same thing after a while. Not to mention most of the maps look like total rip offs of past halo maps as well... just not nearly as good.

[QUOTE="tehsystemwarior"]The maps suck, so I hope MP wasn't the main focus.bimmy233

yeah I kinda have to agree, besides Powerhouse and Reflection they all feel kinda weak. Plus the fact that they all seem to take place in the same setting. I understand Bungie used forge to make the levels, but in most cases I felt I myself could have designed better levels then they did in the forge.

[QUOTE="bimmy233"][QUOTE="tehsystemwarior"]The maps suck, so I hope MP wasn't the main focus.dragonfly110

yeah I kinda have to agree, besides Powerhouse and Reflection they all feel kinda weak. Plus the fact that they all seem to take place in the same setting. I understand Bungie used forge to make the levels, but in most cases I felt I myself could have designed better levels then they did in the forge.

[QUOTE="dragonfly110"]

[QUOTE="bimmy233"] I totally agree with you. I really love what Bungie did with the hit detection, as I now feel that a large majority of my shots are actual hitting, but the multiplayer maps are by far the worst yet.tehsystemwarior

yeah I kinda have to agree, besides Powerhouse and Reflection they all feel kinda weak. Plus the fact that they all seem to take place in the same setting. I understand Bungie used forge to make the levels, but in most cases I felt I myself could have designed better levels then they did in the forge.

I only really like it for forge because of how gorgeous it all looks :P

[QUOTE="tehsystemwarior"][QUOTE="dragonfly110"]

yeah I kinda have to agree, besides Powerhouse and Reflection they all feel kinda weak. Plus the fact that they all seem to take place in the same setting. I understand Bungie used forge to make the levels, but in most cases I felt I myself could have designed better levels then they did in the forge.

dragonfly110

I only really like it for forge because of how gorgeous it all looks :P

[QUOTE="dragonfly110"]

[QUOTE="tehsystemwarior"] You like reflection??!?! Personally, I think the design is bad, but aesthetically, it looks great. And I agree with you for everything else.tehsystemwarior

I only really like it for forge because of how gorgeous it all looks :P

Any Halo game with a well-written story (Halo: CE, Halo 2, & ODST) were written by Joseph Staten. If he had wrote the story for Reach, it could've been excellent and probably rivaled Half-Life 2. Trozyn

Unfortunately, Contact Harvest was pretty poor >_>. Cole Protocol wasn't any better, but Staten needs a little more practice in getting together a novel.

Arguably, Joe Staten put too much lore into Halo 2, which was what dragged the campaign down. CE was simple in that it could be stand alone, yet could be the opening for an epic adventure (which we received). 2 was a continuation, and tbh I'm not a fan of that story. 3 was okay, but I don't like what they did with the Ark. It seemed like a letdown from what was promised in the Halo 3 E3 trailer.

Bungie makes great multiplayer. I love the series regardless, but I have to admit, Bungie might need to take a few lessons from IW in terms of excitement. IW needs better writers, but other than that, they do things pretty well. Halos 2/3/ODST lacked the wonder of the very first game. When we first saw the Halo ring, when we landed on it... infiltrating a Covenant ship... exciting stuff, man. There's no emotion in the newer games.

[QUOTE="tehsystemwarior"][QUOTE="dragonfly110"]

I only really like it for forge because of how gorgeous it all looks :P

DarkLink77

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="tehsystemwarior"] The art design for that level was great. To bad the same cant be said for the layout.tehsystemwarior

[QUOTE="Trozyn"]Any Halo game with a well-written story (Halo: CE, Halo 2, & ODST) were written by Joseph Staten. If he had wrote the story for Reach, it could've been excellent and probably rivaled Half-Life 2. Sharpie125

Unfortunately, Contact Harvest was pretty poor >_>. Cole Protocol wasn't any better, but Staten needs a little more practice in getting together a novel.

Arguably, Joe Staten put too much lore into Halo 2, which was what dragged the campaign down. CE was simple in that it could be stand alone, yet could be the opening for an epic adventure (which we received). 2 was a continuation, and tbh I'm not a fan of that story. 3 was okay, but I don't like what they did with the Ark. It seemed like a letdown from what was promised in the Halo 3 E3 trailer.

Bungie makes great multiplayer. I love the series regardless, but I have to admit, Bungie might need to take a few lessons from IW in terms of excitement. IW needs better writers, but other than that, they do things pretty well. Halos 2/3/ODST lacked the wonder of the very first game. When we first saw the Halo ring, when we landed on it... infiltrating a Covenant ship... exciting stuff, man. There's no emotion in the newer games.

[QUOTE="tehsystemwarior"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Layout is atrocious. To be fair, though, a lot of the maps in Reach are VERY good. Any problems with them rests almost solely with the spawn system.DarkLink77

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="tehsystemwarior"] With a better spawns system, and some tweaks, the maps could be very good. Examples being taking out the elevator in Reflection and the outerspace in zealot.

tehsystemwarior

[QUOTE="tehsystemwarior"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Agreed. Bungie is fairly good at making their maps more balanced post release, though, so I have high hopes.DarkLink77

[QUOTE="Sharpie125"]

[QUOTE="Trozyn"]Any Halo game with a well-written story (Halo: CE, Halo 2, & ODST) were written by Joseph Staten. If he had wrote the story for Reach, it could've been excellent and probably rivaled Half-Life 2. Trozyn

Unfortunately, Contact Harvest was pretty poor >_>. Cole Protocol wasn't any better, but Staten needs a little more practice in getting together a novel.

Arguably, Joe Staten put too much lore into Halo 2, which was what dragged the campaign down. CE was simple in that it could be stand alone, yet could be the opening for an epic adventure (which we received). 2 was a continuation, and tbh I'm not a fan of that story. 3 was okay, but I don't like what they did with the Ark. It seemed like a letdown from what was promised in the Halo 3 E3 trailer.

Bungie makes great multiplayer. I love the series regardless, but I have to admit, Bungie might need to take a few lessons from IW in terms of excitement. IW needs better writers, but other than that, they do things pretty well. Halos 2/3/ODST lacked the wonder of the very first game. When we first saw the Halo ring, when we landed on it... infiltrating a Covenant ship... exciting stuff, man. There's no emotion in the newer games.

Fall of Reach is definitely the best. Next I think I would put Ghosts of Onyx, then even First Strike. I have a personal bias for Nylund, though, as you can see. Contact Harvest wasn't a particularly engaging read. And it suffers often from the infamous "infodumps", which can be the bane of all novelists. Many times in CH the narrative was just bogged down by explanations that could have been told in a much more exciting way. FoR managed to set up Halo: CE while be the jumping off point for all people looking to get into the lore, yet remain interesting and well-paced. In terms of enjoyability, CH just didn't hit it for me. Sorry.

The problem with Halo 2 for me was expectation. I remember when everybody was making a fuss, and many of the marketing pieces for H2 were about "They followed us" and Earth was going to be the epic battleground and whatnot. While what Bungie ultimately did for story purposes was fine and dandy, it lacked a sense of flow I feel CE had. In CE, the events were very logical, flowing into each other until the ultimate plot twist. Then from there, it became a story of escape.

Halo 2 crammed so many elements into the story, they were jumping all over the place (literally). After doing one thing, something new pops up, and we have to go take care of that. Then this happens, and then we go across the universe to deal with that. Going back to CE, the first mission set the scene. The next two missions were about regrouping the marine force. The next levels were about learning about the ring. And so on. The locales were different, but they were all in one spot in the universe. I just think it was a more coherent story than Halo 2's. Yeah, the Covenant Civil War was cool, the high point of the story, but that overshadowed the Master Chief I think. I prefer the human side of the story, and that didn't deliver for me.

I really enjoyed Reach's campaign, not sure where I'd rank it though. The only two things I don't like is how parts of the SP levels are copies of the MP levels, and they had a bit too many sections that were basically like playing firefight.

Halo: CE is my favorite game of all time, and I honestly think Reach fully delivered up to those standards. The campaign wasn't AS good, but it came really damn close. The plot itself isn't as good, but the characters are, and it ties in so well with the first. I had a blast the whole way through. I wish they could have devoloped the characters more, but besides that, it was phenomonal.enterawesome

The characters were garbage...don't know what game you played...

Few FPS' or really many games at all have a decent campaign anymore. Gaming is quickly moving toward being multiplayer with single player as a mini game that can be skipped. Good reason why I avoid the HD consoles.

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]Halo: CE is my favorite game of all time, and I honestly think Reach fully delivered up to those standards. The campaign wasn't AS good, but it came really damn close. The plot itself isn't as good, but the characters are, and it ties in so well with the first. I had a blast the whole way through. I wish they could have devoloped the characters more, but besides that, it was phenomonal.xYamatox

The characters were garbage...don't know what game you played...

If you don't want to believe me then please pop in Halo CE and play the campaign all over again like me(after completing REACH of course) and compare the experience with the rest. Compared to CE the rest just left a horrible taste in my mouth. Whatever their next project is going to be, you get bet it will be mp oriented since that's their specialty from now on.

drspudz

Halo: CE is my favorite game of all time, and I honestly think Reach fully delivered up to those standards. The campaign wasn't AS good, but it came really damn close. The plot itself isn't as good, but the characters are, and it ties in so well with the first. I had a blast the whole way through. I wish they could have devoloped the characters more, but besides that, it was phenomonal.enterawesome

you, sir, have won this thread. this is exactly what i was thinking.

I honestly do not understand what was so good about the original Halo: Combat Evolved. That game employed so much monotonous level design that I literally fell asleep.

Halo 3 on the other hand was dynamic and filled with epic fire fights, excellent vehicle sections and well timed hordes.

I find halo 2s campaign very interesting and underrated.

For a start, i find the story very good. earth under attack, delta halo, the prophets, covenant civil war, the arbiter, the gravemind, etc... It was quite compelling if you paid attention to it, and while CEs is more mystery, i find some good in both storys.

Also the Arbiter. Sure, his second level(the Oracle) was bad, but the other levels were good( such as Sacred icon and Uprising) and it gave as a change from old MC. Also, his active cam is awesome.

Some of the levels are bad, but others are truly amazing. Metropolis, Delta Halo, and Gravemind are some of the best levels i've ever played in an FPS. Of course, you did have some HORRIBLE ones...

I also found the covenant civil war to be fascinating. Sure, the brutes could be pain, but they offered a new dynamic of gameplay, and they made way for even 4-way battles(gravemind and High charity) Also, fighting alongside Hunters while playing as the arbiter is awesome.

Reach campaign was great, my favourite Halo game (and campaign) by far. I haven't played Halo CE though, but watched some lengthy walkthroughs before and I don't see what would make it better than Reach's, except nostalgia. Multiplayer is what keeps people playing for years.SaltyMeatballs

Eh, watching walkthroughs generally gives you very little idea of how a game works and plays. I'd say try playing it, but it's probably never gonna have the impact it had back then.

Not that I'm a big fan of CE, but I can see why SP fans would prefer it.

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"]Reach campaign was great, my favourite Halo game (and campaign) by far. I haven't played Halo CE though, but watched some lengthy walkthroughs before and I don't see what would make it better than Reach's, except nostalgia. Multiplayer is what keeps people playing for years.DraugenCP

Eh, watching walkthroughs generally gives you very little idea of how a game works and plays. I'd say try playing it, but it's probably never gonna have the impact it had back then.

Not that I'm a big fan of CE, but I can see why SP fans would prefer it.

halo campaigns are nothing special..just another fps campaign, i much preferred timesplitters 3 campaign or red faction 2 campaigns to halo CEcampzor

I thought it was one of the best campaigns of the halo series.

Cloud567kar

Really? I liked the campaigns of Reach and ODST far more than Halo CE. The Library and all the repetition in the levels really mars CE's campaign. I actually find it kind of absurd that people call it the best, but then ignore how underwhelming it is compared to later Halo campaigns :?Skittles_McGee

Well I can agree Halo ce had the best sp. I did have one level in H2 I could come back to, which was the level with the covenant fighting each other with you in the middle of the **** storm. Halo 3 was pretty lackluster, no doubt. Reach, although not having the best level design layout(infact one of the worst for many levels imo) made up for it in gameplay.

I'd put reach at spot# 2. Then 2, then 3.

They have gone somewhat downhill, but still decent enough to playthrough at least once. I can play Reach and Ce again more than once though, and I already have. I wish Reach had maps for mp as good as H2 though. While I wasnt fond of the actual maps in h2, the general design for them was pretty damn good. Pretty even, like h3 for some maps, unlike reach. On a side note, I think people are too nostalgic about CE.

On another side note, I didnt mention odst...But why bother?

[QUOTE="Skittles_McGee"]Really? I liked the campaigns of Reach and ODST far more than Halo CE. The Library and all the repetition in the levels really mars CE's campaign. I actually find it kind of absurd that people call it the best, but then ignore how underwhelming it is compared to later Halo campaigns :?Trozyn