Halo: Combat Evolved Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: The Campaign Sucks
  • Subject: The Campaign Sucks
Subject: The Campaign Sucks


Posted by: chickenlittle
Care to defend that standpoint?


Reach has very intelligent enemies, great new weaponry, it expanded the Halo formula in interesting ways, and had a story which was well explained.

Halo 3 had great environments, huge battles, well done Flood, a detailed, and good, story, and good weaponry.

Both also have a nice amount of easter eggs, customization and, if you wish to put things in a perspective of their own times, both really revamped customization for first person console shooters. You can do a LOT with both games.

I feel like this needs repeating: Halo: Combat Evolved is NOT A BAD GAME in my opinion. It's good. It had really great AI for its time and the weapon variety was nice. I simply do NOT like the confusing nature of the levels, lack of help the game gives you, and repetitiveness of some areas. At times I would blunder around for 30 - 40 minutes while unintentionally backtracking just so I could advance into another bland, similar looking part of the level. Other times I'd go down what seemed to be just a random path to nowhere and I thought I was just exploring, and it turned out to be the right way to go. All of that just added up to a bad experience to me both when it came out, and the most recent time I played it.

I realize the game was great for its time, and I'm still not saying it isn't. I think it's a good accomplishment. I don't think it's the best in the series though. Not by a long shot. The weaponry improved, the customization improved, the AI improved (at least for the enemies), and gunfights improved. Personally, I think level designs improved with time too. Senseless levels like the Library and High Charity (from Halo 2) stopped existing and levels like the Covenant and the Pillar of Autumn came to be.

All of this is debateable/opinion and I doubt that I will convince you to change your opinion of Halo: CE. I just feel that other Halos made leaps and bounds beyond Combat Evolved and that, while CE was good, it was only decent in comparison to what the rest of the franchise has to offer.

  • 03.14.2011 11:05 PM PDT
  • gamertag: xKnoxy
  • user homepage:

I'm watching you Bungie.

ಠ_ಠ

Make a better game?

  • 03.15.2011 5:24 AM PDT

the game is old, there not that great compared to now, have you ever played quake? every thing looks the same there. and xbox 1 games all have cookie cutter things in them such as, fable 3 with the chars. and the buildings, the only thing different is placement, same goes for the farcry series. you just gotta apreciate what it did for such a great IP.

that been said, i disagree with you, ive never had problems navigating the halls of that game.

  • 03.15.2011 7:40 AM PDT

Here we go. Hold onto your helmets, this is gonna get rough.Posted by: An average gamer

Posted by: chickenlittle
Care to defend that standpoint?


Reach has very intelligent enemies, great new weaponry, it expanded the Halo formula in interesting ways, and had a story which was well explained.
I never found Reach's enemies intelligent. After seeing the player, they simply knew exactly where you were at all times regardless of line of sight. The only change of behaviour on higher difficulties is shooting faster with exponentially more damage per shot; this means dying after getting hit by 6 plasma rifle rounds in Reach. Whereas in CE, I noticed enemies flank me, I used line of sight to distract and flank them, and enemies were in general more aggressive, especially Elites.

Halo 3 had great environmentsGreat environments were there.
huge battlesCheck.
well done FloodFlood looked good, but were boring and annoying to fight. They would die from everything. They were fun to fight in CE because you couldn't just headshot the spores; you felt yourself go into retreat, starting to get desperate as they literally mobbed you in swarms of a dozen or more.
a detailed, and good, storyThe story in Halo 3 was bad, and cliche' abounded. Humanity went into a fight as on the edge of extinction against an enemy superior in every imaginable way, and somehow came out to win the entire war in the end.
and good weaponry.Some of the weapons were good. By good, I mean overpowered and Jack-of-all-trades. The rest were underpowered, unused duplicates with different skins.

Both also have a nice amount of easter eggs, customization and, if you wish to put things in a perspective of their own times, both really revamped customization for first person console shooters. You can do a LOT with both games. Easter eggs are there for sure. Customization, with CE just gametypes, although Custom Edition you could do anything on. Halo 3 had basic character customization and a very limited map editor.

  • 03.15.2011 1:21 PM PDT

Hanger one I just shredded with the SMGs until ammo was out and I just threw 'nades like a boss while BRing.

My experience playing Cairo Station on Legendary

I find the campaign okay. It's not as epic as others say it is, but it's definitely fun. I think this all depend on what game you played first. I played Halo 2, and boy did I play it. I must have logged hundreds of hours on campaign. (I did not have live) If you played CE first, you would probably prefer that.

  • 03.15.2011 3:51 PM PDT

I could be wrong but i think the reason a good majority of people most likely understand why Halo1 still even now towers over the competition - including it's own- , is because they played it many times over

Having played the campaign so many times now i feel it qualifies me able to offer a much more accurate opinion of why Halo 1 is still so incredible

Forgetting that the graphics are not today's standards - and frankly who cares when they still look and feel as good as they do providing you don't do that on Xbox 360 emulation - , the things most people bring up as a fault is how architecture repeats.While play spaces are re-used, the encounters in them are not and that's the point people miss.And you really would miss having played maybe only the once say

Flood unlike all other versions of them that followed are great fun to fight- i'm really not sure what Bungie did in later versions that lessened this

Levels in Halo 1 were more substantial in size but also in how sense of scale felt to the player- the result was a much more believable experience in these locations.And that backtracking was key to why you felt such emotions- something familiar yet different is very powerfull and Bungie went and did something rather stupid by listening to media and fans that complained about it- truth is most reviewers at that point wonthave likely played it more than once to know

All the Halo sequels are excellent games but they have been created in a very different way to how right the first magnificent game was

Still play the hell out of Halo1 campaign and for of us that do, it's a no brainer why we do this.I will always play Bungie's excellent follow ups but they're on a different page

I pray that the Halo remake is done respectfully but it does worry me that it will be just one big balls up

[Edited on 03.15.2011 9:54 PM PDT]

  • 03.15.2011 4:21 PM PDT


Posted by: chickenlittle
Here we go. Hold onto your helmets, this is gonna get rough

I never found Reach's enemies intelligent. After seeing the player, they simply knew exactly where you were at all times regardless of line of sight. The only change of behaviour on higher difficulties is shooting faster with exponentially more damage per shot; this means dying after getting hit by 6 plasma rifle rounds in Reach. Whereas in CE, I noticed enemies flank me, I used line of sight to distract and flank them, and enemies were in general more aggressive, especially Elites.

Great environments were there.

Flood looked good, but were boring and annoying to fight. They would die from everything. They were fun to fight in CE because you couldn't just headshot the spores; you felt yourself go into retreat, starting to get desperate as they literally mobbed you in swarms of a dozen or more.

The story in Halo 3 was bad, and cliche' abounded. Humanity went into a fight as on the edge of extinction against an enemy superior in every imaginable way, and somehow came out to win the entire war in the end.

Some of the weapons were good. By good, I mean overpowered and Jack-of-all-trades. The rest were underpowered, unused duplicates with different skins.

Easter eggs are there for sure. Customization, with CE just gametypes, although Custom Edition you could do anything on. Halo 3 had basic character customization and a very limited map editor.


Reach's enemies have a good amount of intelligence. They charge you when they should, and annoyingly run away/hide behind cover when they are about to die. I also have to fall back a lot when going up against groups in Firefight. The dodge all sorts of shots, Armor Lock when necessary, and they don't always know where you are. You can go invisible and use holograms against them pretty effectively.

You also have varied AI in the game too. Large hunters, nimble Elites, cowardly Grunts, agile, rushing Skirmishers, slow and accurate Jackals, swarming buggers, and powerful, charging Brutes. I know almost all of them are in CE, but the AI was improved to fight the player more effectively in Reach and to deal with Armor abilities.

Also, Environments SUCKED in CE. Granted, not always, but enough for me to hate several levels in that game. The part with the library, one of the snowy levels (can't remember which) and even parts of the second level were too massive and confusing at times. Large doesn't equate to fun, especially when you need to find your own waypoints. The first time I played the game I quit in the second level with a massive headache after wandering around for an hour and was turned off from the game for a while (many years ago, but my point stands).

Battles in Halo 3/Reach were much bigger. The twin Scarab battle in Halo 3 and the many huge fights in levels like the Pillar of Autumn showcase that.

Combat Evolved's story basically throws you into the Chief's body and says "Ok, go kill guys while we fill you in slowly to what you are doing." Reach gives you a fleshed out story of Noble team attempting to save a doomed planet and Halo 3 has you teaming up with former enemies to take down a ruthless army across the galaxy.

My point of weaponry wasn't to say that Halo 3's/Reach's weaponry was vastly superior, but I do still feel that it feels better and allows more variety than CE. CE give you a small amount of good weapons, but no aresenal which really helped like in the other games. Being limited to only a sidearm and a bunch of automatic weapons isn't fun to me. Halo 3/Reach may rely more on headshot weapons, but they do still allow guns like the Plasma Rifle/Pistol and the Needler to be used effectively. Even the Brute Shot can be used well against the Flood.

The Flood, by the way, is done VERY well in Halo 3. They give new forms, evolving forms, and make them just as agile as in Halo: CE. They also mob you just as much. Pretty much nothing head-shots in Combat Evolved, however, so you don't have the same ability to kill them. That's why you have to retreat more because you know it will take a lot of whatever bullets to kill them.

Customization in Halo 3 not only had the basic map editor, but you also had skulls which allowed campaign customization. Reach expands on both of these while presenting more eggs even referencing offline fanbases AND offering a map editor which was advanced enough to let people build their own maps. On a console game, that is pretty much standalone.

  • 03.15.2011 6:22 PM PDT

"Send me out... with a bang." - Sergeant Johnson's last words.

"I'm ready! How about you?" - Emiles last words.

Uhm, really?? First of all, grow up, second of all, Halo Combat Evolved was a beauty in its time, and it kills Halo 3, EASILY.

  • 03.15.2011 6:27 PM PDT

"Send me out... with a bang." - Sergeant Johnson's last words.

"I'm ready! How about you?" - Emiles last words.

Posted by: An average gamer

Posted by: chickenlittle
Here we go. Hold onto your helmets, this is gonna get rough

I never found Reach's enemies intelligent. After seeing the player, they simply knew exactly where you were at all times regardless of line of sight. The only change of behaviour on higher difficulties is shooting faster with exponentially more damage per shot; this means dying after getting hit by 6 plasma rifle rounds in Reach. Whereas in CE, I noticed enemies flank me, I used line of sight to distract and flank them, and enemies were in general more aggressive, especially Elites.

Great environments were there.

Flood looked good, but were boring and annoying to fight. They would die from everything. They were fun to fight in CE because you couldn't just headshot the spores; you felt yourself go into retreat, starting to get desperate as they literally mobbed you in swarms of a dozen or more.

The story in Halo 3 was bad, and cliche' abounded. Humanity went into a fight as on the edge of extinction against an enemy superior in every imaginable way, and somehow came out to win the entire war in the end.

Some of the weapons were good. By good, I mean overpowered and Jack-of-all-trades. The rest were underpowered, unused duplicates with different skins.

Easter eggs are there for sure. Customization, with CE just gametypes, although Custom Edition you could do anything on. Halo 3 had basic character customization and a very limited map editor.


Reach's enemies have a good amount of intelligence. They charge you when they should, and annoyingly run away/hide behind cover when they are about to die. I also have to fall back a lot when going up against groups in Firefight. The dodge all sorts of shots, Armor Lock when necessary, and they don't always know where you are. You can go invisible and use holograms against them pretty effectively.

You also have varied AI in the game too. Large hunters, nimble Elites, cowardly Grunts, agile, rushing Skirmishers, slow and accurate Jackals, swarming buggers, and powerful, charging Brutes. I know almost all of them are in CE, but the AI was improved to fight the player more effectively in Reach and to deal with Armor abilities.

Also, Environments SUCKED in CE. Granted, not always, but enough for me to hate several levels in that game. The part with the library, one of the snowy levels (can't remember which) and even parts of the second level were too massive and confusing at times. Large doesn't equate to fun, especially when you need to find your own waypoints. The first time I played the game I quit in the second level with a massive headache after wandering around for an hour and was turned off from the game for a while (many years ago, but my point stands).

Battles in Halo 3/Reach were much bigger. The twin Scarab battle in Halo 3 and the many huge fights in levels like the Pillar of Autumn showcase that.

Combat Evolved's story basically throws you into the Chief's body and says "Ok, go kill guys while we fill you in slowly to what you are doing." Reach gives you a fleshed out story of Noble team attempting to save a doomed planet and Halo 3 has you teaming up with former enemies to take down a ruthless army across the galaxy.

My point of weaponry wasn't to say that Halo 3's/Reach's weaponry was vastly superior, but I do still feel that it feels better and allows more variety than CE. CE give you a small amount of good weapons, but no aresenal which really helped like in the other games. Being limited to only a sidearm and a bunch of automatic weapons isn't fun to me. Halo 3/Reach may rely more on headshot weapons, but they do still allow guns like the Plasma Rifle/Pistol and the Needler to be used effectively. Even the Brute Shot can be used well against the Flood.

The Flood, by the way, is done VERY well in Halo 3. They give new forms, evolving forms, and make them just as agile as in Halo: CE. They also mob you just as much. Pretty much nothing head-shots in Combat Evolved, however, so you don't have the same ability to kill them. That's why you have to retreat more because you know it will take a lot of whatever bullets to kill them.

Customization in Halo 3 not only had the basic map editor, but you also had skulls which allowed campaign customization. Reach expands on both of these while presenting more eggs even referencing offline fanbases AND offering a map editor which was advanced enough to let people build their own maps. On a console game, that is pretty much standalone.


And for you, don't relate everything to Halo 3. Remember, 1999 (when it was made and not published) to 2005, BIG DIFFERENCE.

  • 03.15.2011 6:30 PM PDT

Posted by: AngryBrute1
Oh yeah, since somebody does not believe what YOU believe; that makes us vapid...
I cannot grasp that what you call "Something happened to nothing, and that nothing became something, and it was smaller than than a period."

Halo CE was one of bungie's first higher definition games. Then the fact they went from one series to another, trying to make new maps, guns, new everything. Like they say, practice makes perfect.

Respect the classics.

  • 03.15.2011 7:14 PM PDT

Fear the Unicorn

I honestly think Halo CE is more enjoyable than halo 2/3, and Reach, regardless of the age of it.

Something about the graphics in Halo 2 just bugs me, but that aside, the battles were always less epic than Halo 1.

Halo 2 and 3 the brutes were just a joke too. honestly even in Reach, they are easy as jackals to kill.

And I think the graphics of Halo 1 are actually very good, better than a lot of 360 games I own.

the only thing i dislike about Halo CE is no Matchmaking, and the fact i had to watch that light go across in the loading screen. sometimes it went backwards. OMFGKILLMENOW.

  • 03.15.2011 10:12 PM PDT

Dark Neptune, a young amateur astronomer whose gaming life is no different from other teenagers of his age, though he controls it more strictly then others.


Posted by: An average gamer

Posted by: Dark Neptune
That was the main reason why Halo: CE was awesome as compared to other Halo games. You got lost easily.

Many players here don't know the realism about it; when you enter a foreign land, what are expecting, a simple and short linear road to a burger shop? Heck no, you're gotta explore around.

I am by no means a fanboy (Hate Reach, somewhat) but I feel Halo: CE always draw flak from players who didn't play it as a rightful first Halo game; they have been spoiled by the linear and easy-to-navigate missions in later Halo games.

And for the sake of every deity you may believe in this world, the game's a 2001 stuff. People don't seem to realise the technological gaps between each year starting from the 21st century. In fact, it's already astounding to have an FPS where enemy A.I.s don't just target you, AND the fact there are multiple-way wars in which factions decide whether to turn their attention on you, the player, or just plain focus on the other rival factions. (Player v.s. Covenant v.s. Flood v.s. Sentinels, list me another game with that amount of chaos till date.)


I never insulted the amount of technology Halo had for its time. I just hated the confusing nature of every level. Facing the enemies in the game was usually fun, but the levels ruin the gameplay. Running through large confusing levels, or long labyrinths was just annoying.

Regardless of whether or not it's intended, it's still not fun. I don't want to play a game to wander around mindlessly trying to complete a level. I'd rather be able to just progress toward my goal in a more linear way, or at least have the game guide me with visual cues if I am taking too long. Combat Evolved had neither very often. Again, regardless of whether or not it was intended, it wasn't that fun.

I am still not calling the first Halo a horrible game. I liked it well enough. I would just say that it's probably near the bottom of the Halo pyramid. I think the game franchise started off decent, but grew better with time. I will NEVER say Halo CE is better than 3 or Reach by any stretch of the imagination.


Go to China. Complain to the authorities that the country is too confusing to navigate and you had to kept wandering around mindlessly. Await their reply.

Nav points would have utterly ruined the awesome Sandbox-mission experience in the 2nd mission of CE.

Factual Pyramid:

Halo: CE

Halo 2

Halo 3

Halo: ODST

Halo Wars

Halo: Reach

Accept that order. That's the problem with people. They always get spoilt for choice in later game installations, and when they try the original, they start being whiner babies. Halo 2 was my first Halo game.

But it's a fact that Halo: CE Is the best. Why? Because it emphasised more on replay value than linearity and intensity in both Campaign and Multiplayer. (Even though Halo 2's MP was the best.)

  • 03.16.2011 4:09 AM PDT

Dark Neptune, a young amateur astronomer whose gaming life is no different from other teenagers of his age, though he controls it more strictly then others.

Posted by: An average gamer

Reach's enemies have a good amount of intelligence. They charge you when they should, and annoyingly run away/hide behind cover when they are about to die. I also have to fall back a lot when going up against groups in Firefight. The dodge all sorts of shots, Armor Lock when necessary, and they don't always know where you are. You can go invisible and use holograms against them pretty effectively.


You seem to have forgotten the fact that the Reach engine is way more sophiscated than the Halo: CE engine. Plus have you just been playing Halo: CE on "Grandma mode"? (Easy)

Elites in CE will hide behind pillars to recover. The sad part about them is that they don't have regenerating shields. Hunters will lunge at you full-throttle if their bond brothers were killed by you. Plus Legendary should only be played if you fully understand how missions and the A.I.s on it played out, otherwise pray that you don't lose your temper and smash your Xbox and/or TV instead.

And Brutes and Grunts still can stick themselves with grenades, and friendly Marine A.I. is something Bungie should feel ashamed off.

You also have varied AI in the game too. Large hunters, nimble Elites, cowardly Grunts, agile, rushing Skirmishers, slow and accurate Jackals, swarming buggers, and powerful, charging Brutes. I know almost all of them are in CE, but the AI was improved to fight the player more effectively in Reach and to deal with Armor abilities.

Skirmishers were brought in because as there is no Flood or Sentinels in Reach, enemies you encounter in Reach needed to be more varied.

Brutes aren't powerful, they're just the Halo 2 Brutes, dumber and hairless. Armor Abilities? Heck, the only AA the A.I. has adapted is Armor Lock, where they are programmed to time their grenade throws once you come out of it. Unless on Legendary, 96% of the time they fall for your Hologram.

Also, Environments SUCKED in CE. Granted, not always, but enough for me to hate several levels in that game. The part with the library, one of the snowy levels (can't remember which) and even parts of the second level were too massive and confusing at times. Large doesn't equate to fun, especially when you need to find your own waypoints. The first time I played the game I quit in the second level with a massive headache after wandering around for an hour and was turned off from the game for a while (many years ago, but my point stands).

Pretty evident in that quote that you suck at Campaign missions emphasising more on open-world exploration and little linearity.

The 2nd mission has lights near valleys to direct you to a crashsite, so unless you were blind, ah well....

Snowy missions weren't massive; again your navigation in environment sucks, or you are simply intolerant in exploring environments.

But I 102% agree with the part where you mentioned The Library. Worst. Halo. Mission. Ever.

Battles in Halo 3/Reach were much bigger. The twin Scarab battle in Halo 3 and the many huge fights in levels like the Pillar of Autumn showcase that.

Goddamn it, you still cannot slot in the fact that the Halo 3 and Reach engines are more sophisicated and advanced than CE's engine, can't you?

Combat Evolved's story basically throws you into the Chief's body and says "Ok, go kill guys while we fill you in slowly to what you are doing." Reach gives you a fleshed out story of Noble team attempting to save a doomed planet and Halo 3 has you teaming up with former enemies to take down a ruthless army across the galaxy.

I guess you hate the fact there were no "Subtitles-Enabled" option for CE cutscenes, eh? Reach's story is garbage. Go read the novel TFOR. Halo 3 was alright, but compared with Halo 2, it was pretty much a disappointment.

My point of weaponry wasn't to say that Halo 3's/Reach's weaponry was vastly superior, but I do still feel that it feels better and allows more variety than CE. CE give you a small amount of good weapons, but no aresenal which really helped like in the other games. Being limited to only a sidearm and a bunch of automatic weapons isn't fun to me. Halo 3/Reach may rely more on headshot weapons, but they do still allow guns like the Plasma Rifle/Pistol and the Needler to be used effectively. Even the Brute Shot can be used well against the Flood.

Again, weapon diversity builds up in any game franchise after the original game titles are released, and when game developers analyse their post-launch gameplay issues.

Plus, at least Halo: CE had a more role-playing weaponry diversity. Till date I still do not understand why the DMR and Pistol / Plasma Rifle, Spiker and Repeater are co-existing in the same sandbox without proper gameplay reasons to back them up.

The Flood, by the way, is done VERY well in Halo 3. They give new forms, evolving forms, and make them just as agile as in Halo: CE. They also mob you just as much. Pretty much nothing head-shots in Combat Evolved, however, so you don't have the same ability to kill them. That's why you have to retreat more because you know it will take a lot of whatever bullets to kill them.

For the whatever time again, Halo 3's engine > Halo: CE's engine. Grow some brain cells that can absorb that knowledge for once.

Customization in Halo 3 not only had the basic map editor, but you also had skulls which allowed campaign customization. Reach expands on both of these while presenting more eggs even referencing offline fanbases AND offering a map editor which was advanced enough to let people build their own maps. On a console game, that is pretty much standalone.

Halo: CE had easter eggs as well. And for the final time, please, remember

Halo 2's engine was more advanced than Halo: CE. Halo 3's was more sophiscated than both, including the fact that the Xbox 360 itself was better adapted due to technology. Halo: Reach's engine was ultimately more advanced than any Halo game's engine.

Halo: CE started in 1998/1999.

Halo 2 started in 2001-2002.

Halo 3 started in 2004-2005.

Reach started in 2007.

With each Halo game released, the next Halo game in the queue gets a wealth load of experience learnt from the engine developers, as well as more new technologies made avaliable.

  • 03.16.2011 4:42 AM PDT


Posted by: Dark Neptune
Go to China. Complain to the authorities that the country is too confusing to navigate and you had to kept wandering around mindlessly. Await their reply.

Nav points would have utterly ruined the awesome Sandbox-mission experience in the 2nd mission of CE.

Factual Pyramid:

Halo: CE

Halo 2

Halo 3

Halo: ODST

Halo Wars

Halo: Reach

Accept that order. That's the problem with people. They always get spoilt for choice in later game installations, and when they try the original, they start being whiner babies. Halo 2 was my first Halo game.

But it's a fact that Halo: CE Is the best. Why? Because it emphasised more on replay value than linearity and intensity in both Campaign and Multiplayer. (Even though Halo 2's MP was the best.)

Wow, you really are an idiot aren't you? Not only are you going to try to tell me my opinion is wrong, but then insult me for it? Riiiiight. No, it's not fact that CE is better. It's campaign was confusing and at times it's complete and utter GARBAGE. No, a game's not holding your hand doesn't make it fun. A game's not using waypoints and not helping the player doesn't make it fun. Thinking that way is stupid. If you want total realism, go play America's Army or the tiny amount of niche shooters which have the player die in one bullet. Know why the amount is tiny? Because VERY few people actually play those because they're not FUN. Maybe someday you'll realize people use games to be DIFFERENT from reality and then you can understand why games help the player out. I guess until then you can keep trolling on forums and telling people that they are wrong for thinking games which help them are worse than games which don't, but you're just going to be wrong.
Posted by: Dark Neptune
You seem to have forgotten the fact that the Reach engine is way more sophiscated than the Halo: CE engine. Plus have you just been playing Halo: CE on "Grandma mode"? (Easy)

Elites in CE will hide behind pillars to recover. The sad part about them is that they don't have regenerating shields. Hunters will lunge at you full-throttle if their bond brothers were killed by you. Plus Legendary should only be played if you fully understand how missions and the A.I.s on it played out, otherwise pray that you don't lose your temper and smash your Xbox and/or TV instead.

/quote]
lol More insults? Is that the only way you know HOW to convey an argument? I never had a problem with the CE AI. I merely listed better AI as a reason I like Reach more because it undeniably improved. If you think it didn't, you're a blind idiot who's in complete denial. Also, Hunters may have raged after killing their partner, but you could still take them out with a single bullet.

And Brutes and Grunts still can stick themselves with grenades, and friendly Marine A.I. is something Bungie should feel ashamed off.
Again, more insults. Mad, bro?


Skirmishers were brought in because as there is no Flood or Sentinels in Reach, enemies you encounter in Reach needed to be more varied.

Brutes aren't powerful, they're just the Halo 2 Brutes, dumber and hairless. Armor Abilities? Heck, the only AA the A.I. has adapted is Armor Lock, where they are programmed to time their grenade throws once you come out of it. Unless on Legendary, 96% of the time they fall for your Hologram.

I like how you ignore that they also use Hologram and do their own version of Evade. In Firefight some Elites have camo to, and the Easter Egg enemies use camo to disappear. If you're too busy flaming to see that, I can understand.



Pretty evident in that quote that you suck at Campaign missions emphasising more on open-world exploration and little linearity.

The 2nd mission has lights near valleys to direct you to a crashsite, so unless you were blind, ah well....

Snowy missions weren't massive; again your navigation in environment sucks, or you are simply intolerant in exploring environments.

But I 102% agree with the part where you mentioned The Library. Worst. Halo. Mission. Ever.

You could easily say I "suck" at those types of open world missions, but that doesn't help your point at all. The fact is those aren't fun if the levels are confusing. You get lost, you get frustrated, and you spend more time fighting the environment than you do the actual game.

Wandering around from one room that looks a certain way to another that looks the EXACT SAME and then doing that over and over in that game was not fun to me. I didn't get a sense of accomplishment when I found the right path. It was trial and error and nothing more. Yes, I probably could have figured it out on successive playthroughs, but I will not subject myself to playing games which aren't fun to me.

Goddamn it, you still cannot slot in the fact that the Halo 3 and Reach engines are more sophisicated and advanced than CE's engine, can't you?
If you are going to have me be comparing these two games, you damn well better accept that I can throw that argument out there. One cannot simply say CE is better in every way and if Reach is better at all it's because it is more advanced. It's an advantage the two games have over Reach. I know. It makes them better and is against your argument. Deal with it.

I guess you hate the fact there were no "Subtitles-Enabled" option for CE cutscenes, eh? Reach's story is garbage. Go read the novel TFOR. Halo 3 was alright, but compared with Halo 2, it was pretty much a disappointment.
I like how nowhere in there did you even mention CE. Straw man argument much? All three of those campaigns played better than CE for me, though Halo 2 was not without its High Charities, or most of the Arbiter's missions.

Again, weapon diversity builds up in any game franchise after the original game titles are released, and when game developers analyse their post-launch gameplay issues.

Plus, at least Halo: CE had a more role-playing weaponry diversity. Till date I still do not understand why the DMR and Pistol / Plasma Rifle, Spiker and Repeater are co-existing in the same sandbox without proper gameplay reasons to back them up.

The DMR and pistol are just fine. One is for CQC and is a decent spawn weapon. The other is long range. The Spiker, Repeater, and Plasma Rifle are just variety for the different enemies in the camapign. Brutes have their own world's technology (the Spiker) and the Plasma Rifle is more shield damage oriented than flesh damage. All guns behave differently.

The difference between Reach/Halo 3 and CE is still staggering too. CE's sandbox is absolutely lacking as most of the guns don't help you. Regardless of whether or not it was the first game with little experience, it's less fun and that's what the argument is here. Again, you can't say "But Reach came out later! Of course they are better!!1" unless you are trying to agree with me because that's what I'm saying in the first place...

For the whatever time again, Halo 3's engine > Halo: CE's engine. Grow some brain cells that can absorb that knowledge for once.
I find it funny that are are insulting me more and more for the same post as if I heard your earlier points and could have changed my mind, but didn't... I will also say again that the fact the game came out later and is therefore better is my point. Halo CE was good for its time, yes, but later games which came out did all of it better which is why I think they are better overall.


With each Halo game released, the next Halo game in the queue gets a wealth load of experience learnt from the engine developers, as well as more new technologies made avaliable.


And you pretty much make my argument for me again here. The successive campaigns are better than CE and a large part of it is for that reason. Halo CE was really good for its time, but other games come along and do things like level design better in each title. They make things more fun for the user, and add more variety. You can go ahead and sit there and say CE was the best EVAR and you can go play that game over and over. Maybe you do legitimately do that. If so, more power to you. I, personally, will be playing Reach/Halo 3 and having a great time with better levels, enemies, weapon variety, customization, and stories.

[Edited on 03.16.2011 8:47 AM PDT]

  • 03.16.2011 8:45 AM PDT

I played thru this campaign when I was 11 and never got lost (except the library).

  • 03.16.2011 10:41 AM PDT

hai thare

i downloaded it from the marketplace and i never got lost and beat it pretty easy on heroic...I got this after halo ODST and halo 3, and before i played CE, i sucked at both.

  • 03.16.2011 5:11 PM PDT

Dark Neptune, a young amateur astronomer whose gaming life is no different from other teenagers of his age, though he controls it more strictly then others.

Posted by: An average gamer


If I carry on this arguement I think I will make myself look like a total joke.

So I am just gonna sum this up.

[i]You're basically comparing a 2001 game with a 2010 game and saying how much the 2001 version sucks and how the 2010 is the best or whatever.

And that's the irony. Every damn criticism you made about Halo: CE so far is because you played and enjoyed the benefits of games more advanced, experienced and sophiscated than CE itself.

It's like you're stating the obviousness of a Windows 2000 being way better than a Windows 95, and then criticism how lousy the 95 was.

I so sorry to insult you further, but my opinion is based on the fact that I was once an old school gamer and with games out these days, you really saw how the games these evolved from the 20th century to the early 21st. Compare House of the Dead 1 (Have you even heard of it?) with House of the Dead 4. That's my point. Later and more recently-released titles always have the benefit of learning from their older, inexperienced titles.

To sum it up, my point to you is that your criticism of Halo: CE's Campaign is extremely unfair because so far the judgement you have placed on it is due to "Oh I got lost!" "Too little weapons" "Better A.I." and such.

You can choose to ignore this though, and go back to ranking up your Grade 4 to Field Marshall in Reach. It should make you feel better, knowing that playing a game with a horrible Halo campaign and multiplayer (Excluding Firefight) is way better than playing a Halo game with no online multiplayer and "Less-linear Campaign".

Or you could try to understand that criticising a child's behaviour in real life is totally different to criticising an Adult's behaviour in real life.


If you're unable to understand my analogies, I'd forgive you. Just save your money and don't purchase the CE remake when it comes out. It will save you alot of trouble. :)


  • 03.16.2011 7:39 PM PDT


Posted by: Dark Neptune

I simply compare the two because I didn't have fun in the original Combat Evolved as much as I do in the current Halo games.

I still think it was a good game. I really hope you realize that I'm saying that. I did find it good. I just didn't love it like I did the other titles. The other campaigns and games made changes which made me really enjoy the series so I kept playing it. My love for the series just grew as more games came out.

All of them still feel like Halo to me. Mongoosing through two Scarabs in the Pillar of Autumn and fighting through the Ultras with energy swords felt very much like Halo and were some of the best moments in that game to me.

I realize your opinion, and see where you are coming from. Combat Evolved offered a lot and gave something no other game at the time did. I just didn't enjoy it as much as you did, so I'll just agree to disagree and, as you said, continue to enjoy Reach.

  • 03.17.2011 12:01 AM PDT

This is Sparta!!! eh I mean Reach ^^

I must admit i have to agree to OP
as no other Halo game made you getting lost on several maps like Halo CE. Instead of intense action, you wander around to find the next waypoint.
I mean, Halo is a shooter and not an adventure game.
I wonder if they fix that issue if a Halo CE remake becomes reality.

  • 03.17.2011 4:10 AM PDT

I miss the days when the youngins had the patience to explore a game, not simply expect to be led through it on a leash.

  • 03.17.2011 5:50 AM PDT

I laugh at your pitifall attempts to defeat me!

Well, I'm playing through the Campaign, again, and I'm enjoying it, again. The reason why I love CE the most is because of its sense of scale and wonder. Even if you know what's going to happen the atmosphere portrayed in the original was very Metroid-esque; which is to say it everything feels alien and mysterious. You feel like a lone soldier exploring an unknown world (even the occassional com chatter, or marine support, doesn't detract from this), and the ambiance is perfect. I still activate that optional cutscene in Silent Cartographer, when 'Chief kicks the rock, or piece of metal down into the seemingly bottomless pit.

It's one of the reasons I even love The Library. It's a huge mysterious structure that just begs to be explored. You wish you could just wonder around. It's quiet, dimly lit, eerie, huge, alien and just a magnificent piece of architecture. It is the same paths repeated over and over, yes, but I think it's wonderous beauty and the challenge of the Flood stop it from being boring.

I can see the issue with the same circular rooms ins Assault on the Control Room, but that level offers so much open space and diversity in tackling challenges between those sections. The large scale warfare is its primary feature. Even then, the repeated rooms offer different situations such as the possibility of silencing all enemies without being detected. Two Betrayals is the same area, but also lot different from what came before. Same with Pillar of Autumn.

Ultimately, I just prefer the mystery, wonder and sense of discovery the game captures. It's the chapter where you're learning and it shows. The other titles are more full-on, but this one's more my thing.

  • 03.17.2011 11:44 AM PDT

Dark Neptune, a young amateur astronomer whose gaming life is no different from other teenagers of his age, though he controls it more strictly then others.


Posted by: An average gamer

Posted by: Dark Neptune

I simply compare the two because I didn't have fun in the original Combat Evolved as much as I do in the current Halo games.

I still think it was a good game. I really hope you realize that I'm saying that. I did find it good. I just didn't love it like I did the other titles. The other campaigns and games made changes which made me really enjoy the series so I kept playing it. My love for the series just grew as more games came out.

All of them still feel like Halo to me. Mongoosing through two Scarabs in the Pillar of Autumn and fighting through the Ultras with energy swords felt very much like Halo and were some of the best moments in that game to me.

I realize your opinion, and see where you are coming from. Combat Evolved offered a lot and gave something no other game at the time did. I just didn't enjoy it as much as you did, so I'll just agree to disagree and, as you said, continue to enjoy Reach.


Then your thread should have been that "The Campaign isn't great". "Sucks" implies you hated it all the way.

I think, there's a reason why games are "Original". They aren't matured, experienced, advanced games you see nowdays. These games are just basically trying out new ideas, and that alone is enough to warrant a significant applause from the industry.

I mean, give a CoD fan Black Ops, he will be playing it's Multiplayer like a no-lifer. Give him CoD 1 however, he will be on his com saying how much that game sucks. (No offense).

TBH, I just don't like players like you who "Bash" games like these, because it's kinda insensitive. IMO.

I am no Halo fanboy, but being more considerate in your criticism of games like CE would be more relatively helpful if you want to continue judging games from a non-bias and impartial perspective.

Halo: CE stood out as a shooter in the early 1st decade of the 21st century, but it has relatively little experience to be polished upon, like online Multiplayer for example. (Hell, did you even know CE nearly got shipped without a Shotgun?)

Games like Reach and BO were able to stand out because;

*They have both the experience and lessons learnt from their other "older" siblings.

*Sophiscated Technologies were right at their doorsteps.

*Intense competition from each other gave them new pressure/ideas to improve each of their new respective titles.

*Wider audiences meant more feedback.


In short, if you were to judge Halo: Combat Evolved just because it's Halo: Combat Evolved, and NOT by the fact it's a Halo game and it's sequels and prequel were way better, you will tend to realise the game is alot better than "just good".

:)

  • 03.17.2011 8:16 PM PDT

Dark Neptune, a young amateur astronomer whose gaming life is no different from other teenagers of his age, though he controls it more strictly then others.


Posted by: chickenlittle
I miss the days when the youngins had the patience to explore a game, not simply expect to be led through it on a leash.


Precisely.

That's the reason why Halo: CE's Campaign was replayable, 10 years after release.

And that's the reason why most games' Campaign modes last longer than other. Those that are sick of Multiplayer can always indulge themselves back in Campaign. Non-Linearity missions were treasured like Gods..

  • 03.17.2011 8:19 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: farmerscott21
Halo 1 was a beauty for its time. It should get the respect it deserves.

  • 03.18.2011 12:35 AM PDT

Giver of love and witty comments

I AGREE...

  • 03.18.2011 1:02 PM PDT