Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Which Halo was best?
  • Subject: Which Halo was best?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Which Halo was best?
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: A Forum Cop

Posted by: Final Rose

Posted by: husky1994

Posted by: Final Rose
Halo 4, because I'm not a blind Bungie fanboy.

Halo 4 has less content and staying power than the previous Halos. Therefore it is a bad game.

Actually it has a lot more content. It has Force, Campaign, Armor Abilities, Spartan Ops, and MM.

Halo 1 had just campaign.
Halo 2 just had campaign and MM.
Halo 3 added forge to that.

You see where I'm going?

new =/= better.



Another idiot who thinks he's clever, yet he's too stupid to get the point.

  • 12.31.2012 9:25 PM PDT

In my opinion? Halo 3.
Halo 2 is a close second there.

In terms of innovation, technical advancement, and quality - probably Halo CE. Once again, Halo 2 is a close second.

  • 12.31.2012 9:25 PM PDT

My legit Killtrocity

Camping like a 'mouth breather'
If Fed Ex and UPS merged into one company, would it be called Fed Up?

I don't want to start another account for a digital number that has no true value in ten years.


Posted by: Final Rose
Apparently you were too stupid to comprehend the initial point. Also implying your moronic and baseless opinion is a fact.
But you're assuming that your initial inclusion of spartan ops, AA, and such make the game more worthwhile and coming back for more. That's not the case for a lot of people which may be saying something.

  • 12.31.2012 9:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: DarkVader9494

Posted by: Final Rose
Apparently you were too stupid to comprehend the initial point. Also implying your moronic and baseless opinion is a fact.
But you're assuming that your initial inclusion of spartan ops, AA, and such make the game more worthwhile and coming back for more. That's not the case for a lot of people which may be saying something.

Learn to read. The initial comment stated it has less comment. I completely contradicted that claim.

  • 12.31.2012 9:27 PM PDT


Posted by: DarkVader9494

Posted by: Final Rose
Apparently you were too stupid to comprehend the initial point. Also implying your moronic and baseless opinion is a fact.
But you're assuming that your initial inclusion of spartan ops, AA, and such make the game more worthwhile and coming back for more. That's not the case for a lot of people which may be saying something.
Why are you even arguing with Rose?

  • 12.31.2012 9:27 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

My signature is rather loopy and elegant... I don't see a way to replicate this in text form. Do italics work? Yes, they do


Posted by: Final Rose

Posted by: HistoryHighlight

Posted by: Final Rose

Posted by: husky1994

Posted by: Final Rose
Halo 4, because I'm not a blind Bungie fanboy.

Halo 4 has less content and staying power than the previous Halos. Therefore it is a bad game.

Actually it has a lot more content. It has Force, Campaign, Armor Abilities, Spartan Ops, and MM.

Halo 1 had just campaign.
Halo 2 just had campaign and MM.
Halo 3 added forge to that.

You see where I'm going?


More =/= Good.

Apparently you were too stupid to comprehend the initial point. Also implying your moronic and baseless opinion is a fact.


Well well well. Someone likes to make assumptions. I was on your side dopey, I was pointing out that Halo 4 is still a steaming sack of -blam!- regardless of the amount of content. Granted I could've been a bit more specific so I apologise in that regard.

  • 12.31.2012 9:28 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

You guys might find this funny. But I gave Halo 4 away.

  • 12.31.2012 9:29 PM PDT

Pure Insanity
The point of war is not to die for one's clan, but it's to make the other bastard die for his
Right before you die, there is always a chance to save yourself, sieze that chance and live to fight another day
The best way to kill someone is to fight them with the same weapons they use and make them know you are better than them, not because of superior weaponry, but because of superior skill.
Hidden in the shadows, Clothed in camo, Armed to the teeth. Hunting.


Posted by: HistoryHighlight

Posted by: Final Rose

Posted by: HistoryHighlight

Posted by: Final Rose

Posted by: husky1994

Halo 4 has less content and staying power than the previous Halos. Therefore it is a bad game.

Actually it has a lot more content. It has Force, Campaign, Armor Abilities, Spartan Ops, and MM.

Halo 1 had just campaign.
Halo 2 just had campaign and MM.
Halo 3 added forge to that.

You see where I'm going?


More =/= Good.

Apparently you were too stupid to comprehend the initial point. Also implying your moronic and baseless opinion is a fact.


Well well well. Someone likes to make assumptions. I was on your side dopey, I was pointing out that Halo 4 is still a steaming sack of -blam!- regardless of the amount of content. Granted I could've been a bit more specific so I apologise in that regard.


Lol This conversation.

  • 12.31.2012 9:30 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Campaign wise? halo 2. but the multiplayer was too n00bified for my liking.

[Edited on 12.31.2012 9:32 PM PST]

  • 12.31.2012 9:30 PM PDT

My legit Killtrocity

Camping like a 'mouth breather'
If Fed Ex and UPS merged into one company, would it be called Fed Up?

I don't want to start another account for a digital number that has no true value in ten years.


Posted by: Final Rose
Learn to read. The initial comment stated it has less comment. I completely contradicted that claim.
I read clearly.

A lot of people find content worthless and meaningless if it doesn't do anything for them. Like saying the addition of horse armor in Oblivion makes it better.

  • 12.31.2012 9:30 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Halo Reach because not a fanboy of a fake world.

  • 12.31.2012 9:32 PM PDT


Posted by: Foton
You guys might find this funny. But I gave Halo 4 away.

Yeah, it's really boring and zero to no replay value.

  • 12.31.2012 9:33 PM PDT

You got stuck by FalconStickr

You need to break down this thread to a certain aspect of each game. Such as story, multiplayer,weapons,physics,etc. But all around I say Halo 2 or Reach

  • 12.31.2012 9:34 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Halo Reach is the best.

  • 12.31.2012 9:36 PM PDT


Posted by: Aang the Avatar
Halo Reach is the best.

Reach was fun, but it had a lack-luster campaign. Mine would be Halo 3.

  • 12.31.2012 9:37 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: DarkVader9494

Posted by: Final Rose
Learn to read. The initial comment stated it has less comment. I completely contradicted that claim.
I read clearly.

A lot of people find content worthless and meaningless if it doesn't do anything for them. Like saying the addition of horse armor in Oblivion makes it better.

You can say it doesn't add anything all you want, the fact of the matter is millions of people enjoy it and play the added content that you dislike. Keep in mind how you're one random person vs millions of other people. Sure, you have other idiots who don't like the game simply because they're bungie fanboys who can't adapt, but you all are a minority.

  • 12.31.2012 9:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

My signature is rather loopy and elegant... I don't see a way to replicate this in text form. Do italics work? Yes, they do


Posted by: Final Rose

Posted by: DarkVader9494

Posted by: Final Rose
Learn to read. The initial comment stated it has less comment. I completely contradicted that claim.
I read clearly.

A lot of people find content worthless and meaningless if it doesn't do anything for them. Like saying the addition of horse armor in Oblivion makes it better.

You can say it doesn't add anything all you want, the fact of the matter is millions of people enjoy it and play the added content that you dislike. Keep in mind how you're one random person vs millions of other people. Sure, you have other idiots who don't like the game simply because they're bungie fanboys who can't adapt, but you all are a minority.


That's one of 343's problems. They're pandering to the casual gamer to try and drag softcore fans of CoD and Battlefield into the now bastardised franchise (which admittedly began with Bungie). I can understand your point of view, but he is not the only one. Don't condescend people for thinking for themselves.

  • 12.31.2012 9:44 PM PDT

Per Audacia Ad Astra

Why isn't Halo CE the fanboy option? That's where it all started.

  • 12.31.2012 9:45 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: HistoryHighlight

That's one of 343's problems. They're pandering to the casual gamer to try and drag softcore fans of CoD and Battlefield into the now bastardised franchise (which admittedly began with Bungie). I can understand your point of view, but he is not the only one. Don't condescend people for thinking for themselves.

You can hardly call going against the majority "thinking for himself". Sure, he probably analyzed every flaw and the game and exaggerated them to form his own perception, but that just invalidates his stance and makes it horribly subjective.

  • 12.31.2012 9:46 PM PDT

Da Husk.

Posted by: Final Rose
Another idiot who thinks he's clever, yet he's too stupid to get the point.

Halo 4:
-Shorter campaign
-Less custom game options
-Less Forge options
-Fewer MM playlists
-No Firefight
-No playable Elites
-Broken File Share system

Sure, Spartan Ops was added, but that is not large enough to make up for the amount of content lost by essentially destroying Forge and Customs, as well as shortening the campaign and removing Firefight.

Content-wise, Halo 4 isn't even half the game Reach is.

  • 12.31.2012 9:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: WhiteFang0699

Posted by: Aang the Avatar
Halo Reach is the best.

Reach was fun, but it had a lack-luster campaign. Mine would be Halo 3.


Halo 3's campaign sucked though! The first half at least. And Cortana.

  • 12.31.2012 9:46 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

My signature is rather loopy and elegant... I don't see a way to replicate this in text form. Do italics work? Yes, they do


Posted by: Final Rose

Posted by: HistoryHighlight

That's one of 343's problems. They're pandering to the casual gamer to try and drag softcore fans of CoD and Battlefield into the now bastardised franchise (which admittedly began with Bungie). I can understand your point of view, but he is not the only one. Don't condescend people for thinking for themselves.

You can hardly call going against the majority "thinking for himself". Sure, he probably analyzed every flaw and the game and exaggerated them to form his own perception, but that just invalidates his stance and makes it horribly subjective.


Because going with the majority is normally considered as independant thought?

And of course it's subjective. The amount of people holding an opinion doesn't add any objectivity to it, every opinion, no matter how widely held, is subjective. You can't really quantify it.

  • 12.31.2012 9:48 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: HistoryHighlight

Posted by: Final Rose

Posted by: HistoryHighlight

That's one of 343's problems. They're pandering to the casual gamer to try and drag softcore fans of CoD and Battlefield into the now bastardised franchise (which admittedly began with Bungie). I can understand your point of view, but he is not the only one. Don't condescend people for thinking for themselves.

You can hardly call going against the majority "thinking for himself". Sure, he probably analyzed every flaw and the game and exaggerated them to form his own perception, but that just invalidates his stance and makes it horribly subjective.


Because going with the majority is normally considered as independant thought?

And of course it's subjective. The amount of people holding an opinion doesn't add any objectivity to it, every opinion, no matter how widely held, is subjective. You can't really quantify it.

The majority is the majority for a reason. And all opinions are subjective, however they all vary in ones perception of it. They can objectively analyze the game and form their opinion on it, or they can analyze it with bias and form their opinion off of that.

  • 12.31.2012 9:49 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

My signature is rather loopy and elegant... I don't see a way to replicate this in text form. Do italics work? Yes, they do


Posted by: Final Rose

Posted by: HistoryHighlight

Posted by: Final Rose

Posted by: HistoryHighlight

That's one of 343's problems. They're pandering to the casual gamer to try and drag softcore fans of CoD and Battlefield into the now bastardised franchise (which admittedly began with Bungie). I can understand your point of view, but he is not the only one. Don't condescend people for thinking for themselves.

You can hardly call going against the majority "thinking for himself". Sure, he probably analyzed every flaw and the game and exaggerated them to form his own perception, but that just invalidates his stance and makes it horribly subjective.


Because going with the majority is normally considered as independant thought?

And of course it's subjective. The amount of people holding an opinion doesn't add any objectivity to it, every opinion, no matter how widely held, is subjective. You can't really quantify it.

The majority is the majority for a reason. And all opinions are subjective, however they all vary in ones perception of it. They can objectively analyze the game and form their opinion on it, or they can analyze it with bias and form their opinion off of that.


No one is absolutely immune to bias. And who are you to assume whether or not he evaluated them 'objectively' or not?

  • 12.31.2012 9:51 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3