Poll: Halo: combat evolved
- Thread starter Nehari
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've never owned an Xbox, so I've only owned Halo: CE. I played Halo 3's campaign co-op with a friend, and watched my friends beat Reach on legendary last night, so I can't really say which I like best.
Have yet to play Reach... ODST wasn't that great... Halo 2 was okay... Combat Evolved was good...
But Halo 3... to me... was the best... Not just the game... But the whole experience of waiting in line to pick it up... drinking the Halo Mt. Dew... it being the first game I ever played with 4 player co-op... Staying up from midnight till 3 pm the next day... And having eveyone else die, thus leaving it up to me to "finish the fight"...
But Halo 3... to me... was the best... Not just the game... But the whole experience of waiting in line to pick it up... drinking the Halo Mt. Dew... it being the first game I ever played with 4 player co-op... Staying up from midnight till 3 pm the next day... And having eveyone else die, thus leaving it up to me to "finish the fight"...
Halo CE had one of my favourite campaigns of all time but reach just has so much stuff crammed into it it's hard to make a descission... I think I'll go with reach because it is just so polised and filled with content that Halo CE and really any other halo game can't really compare to it.
Halo Reach, I've yet to find so much enjoyment out of an online multiplayer shooter (deathmatch style of course).
I've barely played any of the series. I tried the orginal Halo once, and the second a couple times. Wasn't really impressed, have absolutely no idea why people think it was some type of landmark series. The only FPS game I've really played since the days of Doom and Quake was Time Splitters (which I really liked) and I've played some games of COD WAW and MW2 with friends when really bored.
To be fair, this description could be applied to any first person shooter of the same era save Battlefield 1943. And, even then, Halo featured more than its share of open design and set piece battles that did not include a corridor in the most literal sense.Hazy said:
To be honest, having played everything except Halo Wars (and that was mostly because I have never played an RTS on a console that I enjoyed), I'd have to say that Reach is probably the best of the lot. Of course, it is still just a Halo game, with all that entails but I'd agree with a statement made in (I believe) the Escapist's Review: that Reach is really a "Best of Halo Moments" montage. Only time will tell if I find its various offerings as entertaining as ODST.
I still could not care less for the adversarial multiplayer component, but I suppose I'll give it a try since I've already finished the single player campaign and a multiplayer legendary run, just to wring a few more hours out of the package, but like each Halo game that came before the affair is likely to be brief.
And, to put it in better context:
Halo CE - The first console FPS that convinced me the genre could be done properly on a console. Sure, I still favor the PC if I have a choice in the matter, but often these days if I want to play with friends, I have to play on a console. The story was engaging, the action suitably frantic and better still I could play the game though with friends. I still miss the indestructible warthog from CE and to this day endeavor to maneuver warthogs through places no vehicle was ever meant to go. The highlight of this quest occurred in CE and has never been bested, when a friend and I managed to get a warthog onto the map in the very bowels of the Silent Cartographer level
Halo 2 - My least favorite entry in the series. The action seemed more or less identical to that from CE, yet the minor tweaks along the way seemed to sap much of the joy from the game. The game's legendary difficulty was no longer an entertaining challenge but a frustrating exercise that I never bothered to complete. After a brief attempt at a co-op campaign, the game gathered dust for months until I finally found the will to slog though to the end only to find the whole thing ends on a cliffhanger ending.
Halo 3 - Most of my complaints with Halo 2 were resolved. The game one again seemed well tuned, but again it was just more of the same. The story was resolved in a satisfactory fashion, even if somewhere along the way it seemed to jump the shark. Still, I played little more than the campaign and a few co-op sessions before I called it quits. The only notable thing about this game was it was the first time I tried playing a Halo game online. It did not hold my attention.
Halo 3 ODST - Probably the strongest narrative effort from the franchise, and the campaign actually felt notably different thanks to the alternating perspectives. The complaint I would lodge against the campaign is simply that many of the challenges seemed utterly imbalanced for the slower, less lethal and significantly more fragile ODST troops. While I liked the cooperative campaign (though, I enjoyed the single player campaign more), the real value for me was in the firefight element which I enjoyed more than similar offerings in other games (Nazi Zombies, Hoard Mode, etc). After playing off and on, I managed to get par on most of the maps save the most annoying (crater for example).
If I have to resort to reading a wiki to figure out just what the hell is going on, someone isn't doing a good job of telling a story. Going and reading the various wiki entries on halo these days is just silly. The forerunners were so advanced they could build artificial stars? An AI can be brainwashed? Shield worlds? Somewhere around halfway through 2, the whole thing really jumped the shark. They reigned in it a bit by 3, so at least the story seemed coherent. I never quite knew precisely why I was doing any particular thing in Halo 2, especially on the Arbiter missions.Miumaru said:
I could agree with this in general with one, relatively major, exception. The fact that the Rookie can determine, by finding a single clue, very specifically what happened in a battle hours prior, seems a bit strange. Sure, Dare's helmet was specific enough to determine it was relevant to the fate of his squad, but unless the rookie memorized the sniper rifle's serial number (which he only saw after being smacked in the face with it), or there was some non-obvious indicator marking it as the one his squad carried into battle, it wouldn't tell him anything relevant about his squad. Could have been ANYONE's sniper rifle. It also wasn't entirely clear precisely why the Engineer was important or how it would save the war effort.Cuddly Razor said:
Combat evolved, although there is a crap laod of nostalgia involved here. When I palyed the first level it blew my mind, so epic.
But I played Reach today and I wasn't very impressed. The story and atmosphere was good but the gameplay was just more of the same, hell I felt like I was playing Halo 1 with better graphics >.>
But I played Reach today and I wasn't very impressed. The story and atmosphere was good but the gameplay was just more of the same, hell I felt like I was playing Halo 1 with better graphics >.>
Oh, by the time they release that it would be much cheaper. They have yet to release halo 3 on pc so reach still has a LONG way to go before that happensFlames66 said:
My favourite is Reach or Halo 3. I love everything about Reach, apart from the multiplayer maps. I really preferred the maps from Halo 3.
From the ones I've played.
The worst was Halo Wars, then Halo: ODST, then Halo 3 and my fave is Halo: Reach.
The worst was Halo Wars, then Halo: ODST, then Halo 3 and my fave is Halo: Reach.
I am still waiting for my Reach 360 to turn up, so I can't judge that one.
But so far, Halo: Custom Edition followed by ODST. Two is worst (JACKAL SNIPERS!) and three was good, but not as good as CE. Nothing quite like flying a strike Pelican in multiplayer, except of course driving a Scarab...
But so far, Halo: Custom Edition followed by ODST. Two is worst (JACKAL SNIPERS!) and three was good, but not as good as CE. Nothing quite like flying a strike Pelican in multiplayer, except of course driving a Scarab...