Forums / Games / Classic Halo Games

Best to Worst Halo Games scored

OP oDjento

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 9
  4. 10
  5. 11
  6. ...
  7. 12
im not including the 2 mobile games and halo wars 2 as i haven't played them

for me

Campaign - for me the experience, personality, universe and gameplay are more important than the narrative

Halo 2 - despite the cliff hanger ending halo 2 was a blast, the game was essentially 7 'twin' levels and all were a blast, each tonally different from the last, the vehicles and gameplay were great, cinematics and dialogue were awesome, got a great sense of the universe (big love for 50s-80s retrofuturism and sci-fi), played as the arbiter, got a good mix of horror, really great dynamic between the humans, covenant and flood fighting around the remains of an ominous civilization (forerunners)

Halo CE - halo CE definitely had the most 'ambience' mainly through its sound design and lighting, the gunplay was the best in CE, and some of the spaces were gorgeous, there were some amazing reveals and cinematics too. I think CE had the best run of missions with truth and rec, silent cartographer and assault on the control room. guilty spark and library were a bit repetitive which after the first experience doesn't feel as fun, though for the first game really solid outing.

Halo 3 - off the bat i'll say i didn't like the oversaturated look as much as the grittier yet still vibrant style of the previous 2 games, much like the other 2 there isn't really any majorly weak level (especially since floodgate really is just part of the storm in my eyes), though the storm, the ark and the covenant are easily my favourite, the role vehicles play in this game is better than any other and partly helps make up for the lack of elites. My other main gripe is the cortana / gravemind cinematics, they make it far less fun to play.

Halo reach - went with a more serious and rugged tone with this and i liked it, the elites are too tanky in this game and that's rather annoying since the levels themselves are all pretty solid, exodus and new alexandria are the standout for me in this one, though the second half of long night of solace is really good, there are less memorable 'storyboard' like moments in the gameplay though all around it's still great fun to play

ODST - stylistically this is probably my favourite, however since it was initially planned to be a dlc its length, scope and lack of difficulty are what put it this low on the list. the overworld was an excellent idea, i just wish there was more to do than just explore for collectibles and go to the next level, the soundtrack was great and the character based story missions were a great concept too

Halo Wars - a halo RTS made by the creators of age of empires 1&2 and age of mythology...sign me up. The campaign in this had the halo vibe and the ensemble feel and that was great, the key issue is how simple the RTS was made, i think having a flood faction alongside human and covenant would of helped, and each faction having more building and unit types and more tactics, still the cinematics were beautiful, the collectibles, par times and high scores added more longevity and the creative license they had with creating new units paid off as they were all really cool, and really added to the universe, as well as the timeline.

-----quality gap-----

halo 4 - i really didn't like the philosophy in any sense, they explained too much yet showed too little, the enemies weren't fun to fight, every area was forgettable, the guns or vehicles weren't as crisp to use, i hate the sound design, the art style is very bland, the forerunner redesign i hate,with the older halos there were many times that felt like it made for a good snapshot, storyboard of that experience, something which was distinct, landmarks for the experience, the only landmark i can remember was riding the mammoth, both for its similarity to the start of gears 2 and that it was a different feel to the rest of the monotony of the game, also the characters were just aggravating.

halo 5 - i couldn't recall what happened in the campaign like 2 weeks after i played it, i haven't played halo 3 in over 6 years yet i could probably recite the entire experience without reference, this game just isn't halo

multiplayer - matchmaking, custom games and online co-op

Halo 3 - there were many problems with halo 3, mainly netcode and hit detection which made most things aside from the sniper rifle feel very weak or unreliable, despite this i think halo 3 far and away had the strongest custom games, across multiple accounts i probably put in over 25,000 custom games in halo 3, of those there were probably close to 1,000 unique game types, all user made, none modded, it was the gift that kept giving, also had the most memories with friends on h3, most of which i still talk to, most of which still wish for a more classic experience to be released. Aside from that the maps and playlists were great, ranking system was fun when not on red bar (new zealand) double exp playlists were a great way to showcase community efforts as well as bungie favourites.

Halo 2 - i was much more of a lone wolf in halo 2, i had people added, though i wasn't as big on playing with people i didn't know irl. Still the most well rounded multiplayer experience imo, tonnes of great maps, tonnes of great playlists everything was really solid (maybe not the connection), halo 3 custom games are the only thing stopping me from putting this above h3, most things were more solid in h2 than 3.

Halo reach - custom games weren't that fun in reach, aside from the modded ones which sorta sucked the magic of doing it yourself, though the forge tools for make making were excellent, the grenade launcher was awesome, i loved the multiplayer as i could face local players 24/7 and it felt crisp. Bloom sucked, though i hated it less than h3 BR spread since you could still shoot people on the other side of the map pretty confidently, BTB, team snipers, team classic, 6 teams of 2 multiteam in the early stages and no bloom no sprint were really fun, the achilles heel of the game was mainly the lack of maps and the AAs on spawn, bloom, no ranking system and decrease in custom game options didn't help either. Most vehicles that weren't the warthog or ghost were at their best in this game. UI was excellent, lastly i also really liked powerhouse, swordbase and boardwalk i think they were interesting ideas that needed more stress testing, as they all had a flaw which made them less fun than what their design could of been.

Halo CE / PC - the new BTB maps were cool, though the meat and potatoes of CE is the 2v2 and 4 man FFA, i still think they are the best individual experience halo has to offer, it's lack of variety when compared to the others is what gives it the lower rating

Halo Wars - i had a lot of fun with friends in this game, so for all its flaws there was still a lot of fun and variety to be had

ODST - i loved ODST firefight, to help others i've done endure upwards of 40 times, one of my favourite co-op experiences of all time

----quality gap----

halo 4 - it got so much wrong that i dont have enough word count to explain, but overall there was a halo game in there once everything unhalo was removed, i liked haven, abandon and skyline

halo 5 - nothing about this game feels like halo, you spend as much time running as fighting in disorganized games, for all the praise thrust and magnum get there are 10 others problems which fundamentally undermine its positives, it still isn't fun when you strip everything back as the maps cant be played like that unlike h4
oDjento wrote:
Arcon Fury wrote:
Not counting Spartan Assault or Spartan Strike because I can't bring myself to play those. Also, this list is going by campaigns only.

9. Halo Wars
7. Halo Wars 2
7. Halo 5: Guardians
6. Halo Reach
5. Halo 4
4. Halo 3: ODST
3. Halo: CE
2. Halo 2
1. Halo 3
You Prefer Halo 5's campaign over Reach, 4, ODST, CE, 2 and 3? You'll have to explain as to me that doesn't make sense. I understand some people like the play style of Halo 5 more than the other games but I find most people think 5's campaign is a total slog and terribly written. Although some people said the spartan abilities worked well in campaign rather than in multiplayer.
he rated worst first, best last
oDjento wrote:
Arcon Fury wrote:
Not counting Spartan Assault or Spartan Strike because I can't bring myself to play those. Also, this list is going by campaigns only.

9. Halo Wars
7. Halo Wars 2
7. Halo 5: Guardians
6. Halo Reach
5. Halo 4
4. Halo 3: ODST
3. Halo: CE
2. Halo 2
1. Halo 3
You Prefer Halo 5's campaign over Reach, 4, ODST, CE, 2 and 3? You'll have to explain as to me that doesn't make sense. I understand some people like the play style of Halo 5 more than the other games but I find most people think 5's campaign is a total slog and terribly written. Although some people said the spartan abilities worked well in campaign rather than in multiplayer.
he rated worst first, best last
Oooooooh, okay, my bad!
Halo 2 - despite the cliff hanger ending halo 2 was a blast, the game was essentially 7 'twin' levels and all were a blast, each tonally different from the last, the vehicles and gameplay were great, cinematics and dialogue were awesome, got a great sense of the universe (big love for 50s-80s retrofuturism and sci-fi), played as the arbiter, got a good mix of horror, really great dynamic between the humans, covenant and flood fighting around the remains of an ominous civilization (forerunners)

Halo CE - halo CE definitely had the most 'ambience' mainly through its sound design and lighting, the gunplay was the best in CE, and some of the spaces were gorgeous, there were some amazing reveals and cinematics too. I think CE had the best run of missions with truth and rec, silent cartographer and assault on the control room. guilty spark and library were a bit repetitive which after the first experience doesn't feel as fun, though for the first game really solid outing.

Halo 3 - off the bat i'll say i didn't like the oversaturated look as much as the grittier yet still vibrant style of the previous 2 games, much like the other 2 there isn't really any majorly weak level (especially since floodgate really is just part of the storm in my eyes), though the storm, the ark and the covenant are easily my favourite, the role vehicles play in this game is better than any other and partly helps make up for the lack of elites. My other main gripe is the cortana / gravemind cinematics, they make it far less fun to play.Halo reach - went with a more serious and rugged tone with this and i liked it, the elites are too tanky in this game and that's rather annoying since the levels themselves are all pretty solid, exodus and new alexandria are the standout for me in this one, though the second half of long night of solace is really good, there are less memorable 'storyboard' like moments in the gameplay though all around it's still great fun to play

ODST - stylistically this is probably my favourite, however since it was initially planned to be a dlc its length, scope and lack of difficulty are what put it this low on the list. the overworld was an excellent idea, i just wish there was more to do than just explore for collectibles and go to the next level, the soundtrack was great and the character based story missions were a great concept too

Halo Wars - a halo RTS made by the creators of age of empires 1&2 and age of mythology...sign me up. The campaign in this had the halo vibe and the ensemble feel and that was great, the key issue is how simple the RTS was made, i think having a flood faction alongside human and covenant would of helped, and each faction having more building and unit types and more tactics, still the cinematics were beautiful, the collectibles, par times and high scores added more longevity and the creative license they had with creating new units paid off as they were all really cool, and really added to the universe, as well as the timeline.

-----quality gap-----

halo 4 - i really didn't like the philosophy in any sense, they explained too much yet showed too little, the enemies weren't fun to fight, every area was forgettable, the guns or vehicles weren't as crisp to use, i hate the sound design, the art style is very bland, the forerunner redesign i hate,with the older halos there were many times that felt like it made for a good snapshot, storyboard of that experience, something which was distinct, landmarks for the experience, the only landmark i can remember was riding the mammoth, both for its similarity to the start of gears 2 and that it was a different feel to the rest of the monotony of the game, also the characters were just aggravating.

halo 5 - i couldn't recall what happened in the campaign like 2 weeks after i played it, i haven't played halo 3 in over 6 years yet i could probably recite the entire experience without reference, this game just isn't halo

Halo 3 - there were many problems with halo 3, mainly netcode and hit detection which made most things aside from the sniper rifle feel very weak or unreliable, despite this i think halo 3 far and away had the strongest custom games, across multiple accounts i probably put in over 25,000 custom games in halo 3, of those there were probably close to 1,000 unique game types, all user made, none modded, it was the gift that kept giving, also had the most memories with friends on h3, most of which i still talk to, most of which still wish for a more classic experience to be released. Aside from that the maps and playlists were great, ranking system was fun when not on red bar (new zealand) double exp playlists were a great way to showcase community efforts as well as bungie favourites.

Halo 2 - i was much more of a lone wolf in halo 2, i had people added, though i wasn't as big on playing with people i didn't know irl. Still the most well rounded multiplayer experience imo, tonnes of great maps, tonnes of great playlists everything was really solid (maybe not the connection), halo 3 custom games are the only thing stopping me from putting this above h3, most things were more solid in h2 than 3.

Halo reach - custom games weren't that fun in reach, aside from the modded ones which sorta sucked the magic of doing it yourself, though the forge tools for make making were excellent, the grenade launcher was awesome, i loved the multiplayer as i could face local players 24/7 and it felt crisp. Bloom sucked, though i hated it less than h3 BR spread since you could still shoot people on the other side of the map pretty confidently, BTB, team snipers, team classic, 6 teams of 2 multiteam in the early stages and no bloom no sprint were really fun, the achilles heel of the game was mainly the lack of maps and the AAs on spawn, bloom, no ranking system and decrease in custom game options didn't help either. Most vehicles that weren't the warthog or ghost were at their best in this game. UI was excellent, lastly i also really liked powerhouse, swordbase and boardwalk i think they were interesting ideas that needed more stress testing, as they all had a flaw which made them less fun than what their design could of been.

Halo CE / PC - the new BTB maps were cool, though the meat and potatoes of CE is the 2v2 and 4 man FFA, i still think they are the best individual experience halo has to offer, it's lack of variety when compared to the others is what gives it the lower rating

Halo Wars - i had a lot of fun with friends in this game, so for all its flaws there was still a lot of fun and variety to be had

ODST - i loved ODST firefight, to help others i've done endure upwards of 40 times, one of my favourite co-op experiences of all time

----quality gap----

halo 4 - it got so much wrong that i dont have enough word count to explain, but overall there was a halo game in there once everything unhalo was removed, i liked haven, abandon and skyline

halo 5 - nothing about this game feels like halo, you spend as much time running as fighting in disorganized games, for all the praise thrust and magnum get there are 10 others problems which fundamentally undermine its positives, it still isn't fun when you strip everything back as the maps cant be played like that unlike h4
Pretty much agree with almost all your points, well worded! A shame about the word count as would've liked to hear more of your problems with 4 & 5, as I have a lot of problems too with those games that I've got a feeling you'd probably feel the same.
H1 = H2 = H3 > Reach = ODST

H4 & H5 don't really exist to me.
Mine would be:
1. Halo 3: for gameplay, Halo 2 for story.
2. Halo 2: for gameplay, Halo 3 for story.
3. Halo Reach, purely for gameplay and a fun (if lore breaking) campaign.
4. Halo Wars 2
5. Halo Wars
6. Halo 4 for story, post-patch gameplay was okish
7. Halo CE; feels like this should be higher but I can't justify it. I'll blame age not treating the game kindly
8. ODST; I want to put it higher, like #4 or so but it lacks too much in comparison to main games justify it
9. Halo 5. Terrible story, horrible launch with missing features, invasive REQ system, and gameplay that completely abandoned what it means to be Halo.
10. Spartan Assault; mobile game, to be expected
-snip-
I love this post we agree on pretty much everything to a T xD

Also, Halo Wars 2 is pretty great you should try it out. I wasn't sure at first, but as someone that loved Halo Wars I have to admit it feels like Halo Wars 2 improved on the original gameplay by adding more depth, factions, and meaningful choices to it.
oDjento wrote:
Pretty much agree with almost all your points, well worded! A shame about the word count as would've liked to hear more of your problems with 4 & 5, as I have a lot of problems too with those games that I've got a feeling you'd probably feel the same.
i cant cite anything as i cant remember the source, im sure i could find it if need be but in the mean time i'll say it like this

prior to the release of halo 4 reach population numbers dwindled in 2012 and the community more or less stated the problems
- too many non-dev maps, not enough dev maps
- didn't like bloom
- AAs on spawn made it unfair / chaotic / frustrating (jetpack the biggest culprit, but also sprint and armour lock)
- no ranking system
the social was weak and the ranked was non-existant
was in a nutshell the key rants by the community at the time

343 at that point had released the CE remaster which added some maps which spiced things up a bit, it didn't seem too bad
i can't find the source but it was stated that there would be a more "classic" halo experience as part of its marketing drive, this was at a point in time prior to any gameplay shown (was revealed around june)

if reach is the black sheep how do you make a more "classic" experience? given that 1, 2 and 3 are the only other reference?

from june 2012 until release this was a complete 180 to the aims said prior "to deliver a classic experience the fans want"
- the medals were changed from the classic style known for 11 years to really generic designs
- the audio profile of all the weapons which while slightly different game to game kept some level of continuity were overhauled and made worse
- the entire look of the forerunner structures also became very uninspired and unhalo
- you couldn't drop the flag
- the multiplayer experience had this really weak narrative shoehorned in called 'war games'
- games were join in progress, there shouldn't be any MM game mode that has JiP, it undermines what halo is about
- the weapons had a look change
- the armour was ugly
- the user interface was ugly
- you had loadouts which had an AA on spawn (guess it wasn't classic after all)
- you could spawn with sticky grenades and a pocket shotgun
- grenade hitmarkers
- no red X
- instant respawn
- vehicles were redesigned and looked ugly
- vehicles controlled poorly
- no power weapons on map just personal ordnance (you were given 3 RANDOM choices and got to call one down on the map)
- global ordnance, a power weapon would spawn in a random location at a random time
- new promethean weapons, all of which were overpowered versions of things already in the sandbox
- the maps were poor quality (except haven, a chopped up abandon and later skyline)
- it was promoted there would be 3-4 forge maps, all 4 too small with low ceilings and no real options to forge
- personal ordnance, global ordnance, loadouts and promethean weapons ruined the fun of vehicle use
- weapons despawned quickly
- the ranking system didn't work and the progression system was very short and boring
and like honestly over 50 other things along those same lines of random, unfair, boring, chaotic, frustrating and/or unnecessary

all this was under infinity settings with no option to play anything classic for the first ~6 months

when coming from reach and more than anything else having 4 key issues and told they aim for a more "classic" experience to then having upwards of 100 problems, most unresolved or lessened, little removed was a big slap in the face for people who wanted to see be less random, unfair and/or chaotic as it was the opposite

in the forums there were leagues of players that would simply dismiss your view or misconstrue your opinion and the people at 343 made many snide remarks on reddit, the competitive forums and updates about those vocal players

"Make Halo more accessible, Help new players find success, and Contextualize our universe"
Josh Holmes said that at a conference which was poorly received, that was the philosophy for many of those additions
and was partly the reason for all these pro hires in h5

now i found 2 but there was 3 or 4 documents that addressed problems in h4 and it was largely due to a fellow New Zealander and oldschool H2 player Kurtiz
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1opIDJSRUTcyTI39jXXyb-YzczaYBrDifNKnm9Sp1nlg/edit?pli=1
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QYQb_iGiWrOUyCe6L9FsH5Xkbumtzm5lhmIzS43RTH8/edit?pli=1#
were some documents that detailed problems, it got the input of people at teambeyond as well as the oceanic competitive community and along with the ones i cant find addressed and solved
no red x
no instant respawn
limited loadout choices
personal ordnance was toned down
global ordnance was not random
flags could be dropped
JiP removed
despawn fixed
ranking improved
a new forge map was made to compensate
and some others

a similar manifesto was done to compile bugs and press 343 into fixing MCC something they've only really started to address over 3 years later

same was done with h5 in regards to the janky sticks and look acceleration problems etc

with h5 we had a campaign that betrayed the audience and a multiplayer while more polished and less random, unfair and chaotic was even more alien to the philosophy and style of gameplay halo was known for,
- kept the ugly medals
- made even uglier armour
- had an even worse UI
- still horrible vehicles
- an infinite always active sprint
- scrapped AAs for movement abilities which undermined one of the main points of AAs which was they offer too much advantage considering there's no risk and they're unlimited in use
- sidelined most of the experience for Warzone, much like when they sidelined the classic experience in H4 for wargames and infinity settings
- promoted competitive play in H5 but stipulated they have settings which the competitive community has been vocally against since online halo has existed
- still poor spawns
- the weapons still sound horrid
- forerunner art still looks ugly
- the promethean weapons are still horribly fit into the game
- assault rifles weren't well balanced
- spartan chatter was added
- playlist options are stil woefully bad
- the ranking system still doesn't really work

and now halo has even less action and more boring uneventful cat and mouse due to infinite sprint, wacky movement options and strong AR
halo 6 will have its own myriad of errors, at how many failures do you "learn from you mistakes" when everything you made was bad, most things you outsourced were bad and the main success you've found were from outsourced material and not something made by you?
halos decline happened because it placed importance on things that aren't as fun and changed or removed things that were, it's been a comedy of errors with limited moments of actual fun.

you could add so many cool things while still keeping
- simple, predictable and smooth movement
- equal starts
- weapon sandbox where every weapon is noticeably different and unique
- skillful gunplay
- sticks to halos design aesthetic
- nothing random, chaotic or unfair

every change they make seems to betray those things or does a poor job of it
halo was and should be a simple game with tonnes of subtleties
not an over the top game with little

most successful shooters right now
- rainbow six siege
- CS:GO
- cod WW2
- battlefield 1
- overwatch
- what destiny tried to be
- what battlefront 2 tried to be

all simple games, nothing overly ridiculous
why does 343 halo have to go against the pacing and style of the older ones
there is so much you can add or improve without undermining what people found fun in the older ones.
CE>H2>>>H3>the rest
oDjento wrote:
Pretty much agree with almost all your points, well worded! A shame about the word count as would've liked to hear more of your problems with 4 & 5, as I have a lot of problems too with those games that I've got a feeling you'd probably feel the same.
i cant cite anything as i cant remember the source, im sure i could find it if need be but in the mean time i'll say it like this

prior to the release of halo 4 reach population numbers dwindled in 2012 and the community more or less stated the problems
- too many non-dev maps, not enough dev maps
- didn't like bloom
- AAs on spawn made it unfair / chaotic / frustrating (jetpack the biggest culprit, but also sprint and armour lock)
- no ranking system
the social was weak and the ranked was non-existant
was in a nutshell the key rants by the community at the time

343 at that point had released the CE remaster which added some maps which spiced things up a bit, it didn't seem too bad
i can't find the source but it was stated that there would be a more "classic" halo experience as part of its marketing drive, this was at a point in time prior to any gameplay shown (was revealed around june)

if reach is the black sheep how do you make a more "classic" experience? given that 1, 2 and 3 are the only other reference?

from june 2012 until release this was a complete 180 to the aims said prior "to deliver a classic experience the fans want"
- the medals were changed from the classic style known for 11 years to really generic designs
- the audio profile of all the weapons which while slightly different game to game kept some level of continuity were overhauled and made worse
- the entire look of the forerunner structures also became very uninspired and unhalo
- you couldn't drop the flag
- the multiplayer experience had this really weak narrative shoehorned in called 'war games'
- games were join in progress, there shouldn't be any MM game mode that has JiP, it undermines what halo is about
- the weapons had a look change
- the armour was ugly
- the user interface was ugly
- you had loadouts which had an AA on spawn (guess it wasn't classic after all)
- you could spawn with sticky grenades and a pocket shotgun
- grenade hitmarkers
- no red X
- instant respawn
- vehicles were redesigned and looked ugly
- vehicles controlled poorly
- no power weapons on map just personal ordnance (you were given 3 RANDOM choices and got to call one down on the map)
- global ordnance, a power weapon would spawn in a random location at a random time
- new promethean weapons, all of which were overpowered versions of things already in the sandbox
- the maps were poor quality (except haven, a chopped up abandon and later skyline)
- it was promoted there would be 3-4 forge maps, all 4 too small with low ceilings and no real options to forge
- personal ordnance, global ordnance, loadouts and promethean weapons ruined the fun of vehicle use
- weapons despawned quickly
- the ranking system didn't work and the progression system was very short and boring
and like honestly over 50 other things along those same lines of random, unfair, boring, chaotic, frustrating and/or unnecessary

all this was under infinity settings with no option to play anything classic for the first ~6 months

when coming from reach and more than anything else having 4 key issues and told they aim for a more "classic" experience to then having upwards of 100 problems, most unresolved or lessened, little removed was a big slap in the face for people who wanted to see be less random, unfair and/or chaotic as it was the opposite

in the forums there were leagues of players that would simply dismiss your view or misconstrue your opinion and the people at 343 made many snide remarks on reddit, the competitive forums and updates about those vocal players

"Make Halo more accessible, Help new players find success, and Contextualize our universe"
Josh Holmes said that at a conference which was poorly received, that was the philosophy for many of those additions
and was partly the reason for all these pro hires in h5

now i found 2 but there was 3 or 4 documents that addressed problems in h4 and it was largely due to a fellow New Zealander and oldschool H2 player Kurtiz
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1opIDJSRUTcyTI39jXXyb-YzczaYBrDifNKnm9Sp1nlg/edit?pli=1
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QYQb_iGiWrOUyCe6L9FsH5Xkbumtzm5lhmIzS43RTH8/edit?pli=1#
were some documents that detailed problems, it got the input of people at teambeyond as well as the oceanic competitive community and along with the ones i cant find addressed and solved
no red x
no instant respawn
limited loadout choices
personal ordnance was toned down
global ordnance was not random
flags could be dropped
JiP removed
despawn fixed
ranking improved
a new forge map was made to compensate
and some others

You're absolutely on the ball with all 4 and 5's problems. I believe a lot of the problems that came about with Halo 4 was because of limited capabilities on the 360, but then again it doesn't matter what they could or couldn't do as their focus on graphical improvements over gameplay definitely worsened the experience. We don't want pretty games first, we want fun ones (although pretty is a subjective word here since the new aesthetic is pretty garbage).

However, I must disagree with a few things you said about Reach. The AA changed the gameplay, which broke some traditional Halo conventions we have come to know but they were not game breaking like most people say. Many would disagree but I would say I could counter most AA in the game, and would say Jet pack was worse than armour lock (I thought it should've let you go higher faster but run out of fuel quicker). If I did die because of one of these AA's, it was usually my own fault. Also, not entirely sure as I usually played casual on Reach with friends but wasn't there an arena mode which was Reach's ranked? I did hear that it wasn't very popular though.
Personally I was okay with bloom, not only did I think it felt more apt with Reach's aesthetic but it made people not fully be able to spam DMR bullets across the map and instead be more careful with their shots. The DMR should not be a mini sniper. Some would disagree but I did not believe this choice was game breaking at least. I did have a problem with Reach's maps at first for a bit due to them being campaign levels and forge made maps but I came to like them more later on by realising most (not all) played really well. Countdown turned out a favourite of mine whilst at first I hated it. Boneyard became really fun (unless your team quit and it became shaft central), Sword Base was super fun once you got used to the verticality of it and Boardwalk was fun from the very start (for me). Powerhouse also showcased some great uses for the AA as well and I think is an under appreciated map sometimes. The old maps remade in forge (the cage etc) worked really well with new AA (just looked a bit ugly but gameplay was fun) and the map that ended up being the least fun for me was probably Hemorrhage. Not saying it was bad, but it could become some one sided at times and with so little cover could get pretty aggravating.
However, Spire, with Invasion, was one of the best additions to Halo ever. I spent hundreds of hours playing that level and game mode.

Also, you said "no red x" but i'm not sure what this means?
While I'm not going to get into detail on anything here, it really is fascinating to see what players do and don't like about the Halo games. It's like people watching. Everyone is different in their own unique way
While I'm not going to get into detail on anything here, it really is fascinating to see what players do and don't like about the Halo games. It's like people watching. Everyone is different in their own unique way
I entirely understand where you're coming from, not only seeing what people do and don't like, but also seeing how the people expressing their certain opinions articulate themselves. You get the professional, the troll, the child, the arguer, the pessimist, the optimist, and all sorts of other people. It's a lovely little virtual ecology to watch from a far. Getting involved can be risky though.
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
1. Halo 3
2. Halo 1
3. Halo 2
4. Halo Wars 2
5. Halo Wars 1
6. Halo 4
7. Halo 5
8. Halo Spartan Strike
9. Halo Spartan Assault
10. Halo: Reach

If you want to know why Reach is so low, you probably weren't on the original forums when the game came out. This game is what started that huge split in the Halo Community at least after awhile I had fun with Halo 4 and 5. Reach, those days were just over just memories of people constantly leaving and quitting and friends giving up on the franchise.
But in terms of how much fun you had with reach would you still put it so low? Causing a divide in the community isn't a bad thing usually, it offers up more talking points. You're just more likely to see the outspoken arseholes once people differ on their opinions of a game.
Nah, the first few weeks of the game not fun. I didn't remotely enjoy the game until the Highlands map. Ironically this is my favorite map in any Halo game because of the scenery in the background of the Highland Mountains being glassed. And no, dividing a community is actually a really big deal. People may crap on Halo 4 because of Multiplayer and crap on Halo 5's story but we can discuss Reach starting that divide. If you want to go even further we can even go to Halo 2's origin.
No, division creates a healthy debate. The community of Battlefield became pretty divided about Battlefield 1 compared to Battlefield 4. People now discuss the aspects that make both great. Yes, some people s**t on one or the other but those people were already arseholes and were always going to take issue with these things. You can still have fun by yourself or with your friends on whichever Halo game you choose, and it is not affected by a bunch of other people whining about a game you love. Take for example the new star wars film, The Last Jedi. Some people hate it. I personally love it (I understand it has flaws but what star wars film doesn't?) but my enjoyment isn't ruined because a bunch of other people hate it.

I do understand where you're coming from, but in terms of how a game plays and how much you enjoy it for all its different aspects it is kind of a void argument to make. If you legitimately don't like the game that is fine, as that is personal preference. Saying it is the worse because not everyone you knew liked it is just a bit ludicrous, I must say.

Therefore as I say this, I must look back at your reply. You first say "the first few weeks of the game not fun", then continue to say you didn't remotely enjoy it until Highlands came out. So which is it, didn't enjoy the first few weeks or not at all (anything about the game) until highlands? Just want clarification, as if it is the latter it means you're saying you didn't enjoy (or maybe even appreciate?) and aspects of Reach until 1 map came out, assuming that you then only continued to play (and enjoy) Reach by repeatedly playing this map over and over.

And yes whilst it may look like I've tried to call you out on how you worded your reply, you're right. But what I'm mainly trying to do is make you question whether you think Reach really is that bad just because of it dividing the community.
Gameplay wise, it felt slow and sluggish I get that we are Spartan IIIs in Mjolnir armor but it just felt awkward to play. Then the early mechanics like Bloom since to work fine for the DMR in concept but man...I hated that some people would spam at close range and still win. Then even though we are beating a dead horse Armor Lock was neded in the Beta when the grenades were nukes that shook the screen, but when the Jetpack Grenade combo got fixed it wasn't really needed. A lot of the maps were close range and the EMP and Grenade shedding were a bit too much. Not to mention it ruined vehicle play for splatters. The only thing I truly liked about Reach gameplay wise was Invasion. I didn't like Invasion Slayer but like Invasion especially Breakpoint. But that's about it. Arena was boring and even though it had the most objective gametypes no one seemed to play them. Forge world wasn't that bad either but man...that lack of colors and effects made it pretty bland. Let's not even get started on the campaign maps being multiplayer maps that was just lazy. People can make fun of H3's map packs but it wasn't that bad.
Okay I see your points, whilst I don't agree with all of them I total understand where you're coming from so can see why you aren't as keen on Reach :) But yeah I think almost everyone loved Invasion at least, really wish they'd bring that back as with the engine nowadays they could make it so cinematic (as long as they don't sacrifice gameplay for visuals). And yeah anyone who voted for Invasion Slayer over regular Invasion, just why? :( I also quite like some of H3's map packs, but also I like (most) of Reach's maps as they work well for the gameplay it provides (but then that depends on whether you like the gameplay or not for if you like the maps right?). Some maps in Reach were an absolute pain I'll give you that for sure, but there were so many that I thought worked amazingly with the armour abilities! :)
I felt like the Map pack that contained Highlands was the best map. I still put hours into it because it was a Halo game and I'll stick to this series until the end. Another thing is I probably expected the game to be like the book which was not a good way to approach it. Reach the game and Reach the book are two totally different stories. Not only that we never got the true final mission. Which was supposed to be one more battle in space.
Oh i remember the scarab rumours! That woul've been cool as long as it didn't feel too on the rails imo!
Halo Reach is one of those Halo games where we will never truly know what Bungie was planning at the time. It seems like they had so many ideas but wanted to keep it simple.
oDjento wrote:
While I'm not going to get into detail on anything here, it really is fascinating to see what players do and don't like about the Halo games. It's like people watching. Everyone is different in their own unique way
I entirely understand where you're coming from, not only seeing what people do and don't like, but also seeing how the people expressing their certain opinions articulate themselves. You get the professional, the troll, the child, the arguer, the pessimist, the optimist, and all sorts of other people. It's a lovely little virtual ecology to watch from a far. Getting involved can be risky though.
Getting involved is just as risky as engaging a stranger in political or religious discussions. It's better to just sit back, observe, and listen.
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
1. Halo 3
2. Halo 1
3. Halo 2
4. Halo Wars 2
5. Halo Wars 1
6. Halo 4
7. Halo 5
8. Halo Spartan Strike
9. Halo Spartan Assault
10. Halo: Reach

If you want to know why Reach is so low, you probably weren't on the original forums when the game came out. This game is what started that huge split in the Halo Community at least after awhile I had fun with Halo 4 and 5. Reach, those days were just over just memories of people constantly leaving and quitting and friends giving up on the franchise.
But in terms of how much fun you had with reach would you still put it so low? Causing a divide in the community isn't a bad thing usually, it offers up more talking points. You're just more likely to see the outspoken arseholes once people differ on their opinions of a game.
Nah, the first few weeks of the game not fun. I didn't remotely enjoy the game until the Highlands map. Ironically this is my favorite map in any Halo game because of the scenery in the background of the Highland Mountains being glassed. And no, dividing a community is actually a really big deal. People may crap on Halo 4 because of Multiplayer and crap on Halo 5's story but we can discuss Reach starting that divide. If you want to go even further we can even go to Halo 2's origin.
No, division creates a healthy debate. The community of Battlefield became pretty divided about Battlefield 1 compared to Battlefield 4. People now discuss the aspects that make both great. Yes, some people s**t on one or the other but those people were already arseholes and were always going to take issue with these things. You can still have fun by yourself or with your friends on whichever Halo game you choose, and it is not affected by a bunch of other people whining about a game you love. Take for example the new star wars film, The Last Jedi. Some people hate it. I personally love it (I understand it has flaws but what star wars film doesn't?) but my enjoyment isn't ruined because a bunch of other people hate it.

I do understand where you're coming from, but in terms of how a game plays and how much you enjoy it for all its different aspects it is kind of a void argument to make. If you legitimately don't like the game that is fine, as that is personal preference. Saying it is the worse because not everyone you knew liked it is just a bit ludicrous, I must say.

Therefore as I say this, I must look back at your reply. You first say "the first few weeks of the game not fun", then continue to say you didn't remotely enjoy it until Highlands came out. So which is it, didn't enjoy the first few weeks or not at all (anything about the game) until highlands? Just want clarification, as if it is the latter it means you're saying you didn't enjoy (or maybe even appreciate?) and aspects of Reach until 1 map came out, assuming that you then only continued to play (and enjoy) Reach by repeatedly playing this map over and over.

And yes whilst it may look like I've tried to call you out on how you worded your reply, you're right. But what I'm mainly trying to do is make you question whether you think Reach really is that bad just because of it dividing the community.
Gameplay wise, it felt slow and sluggish I get that we are Spartan IIIs in Mjolnir armor but it just felt awkward to play. Then the early mechanics like Bloom since to work fine for the DMR in concept but man...I hated that some people would spam at close range and still win. Then even though we are beating a dead horse Armor Lock was neded in the Beta when the grenades were nukes that shook the screen, but when the Jetpack Grenade combo got fixed it wasn't really needed. A lot of the maps were close range and the EMP and Grenade shedding were a bit too much. Not to mention it ruined vehicle play for splatters. The only thing I truly liked about Reach gameplay wise was Invasion. I didn't like Invasion Slayer but like Invasion especially Breakpoint. But that's about it. Arena was boring and even though it had the most objective gametypes no one seemed to play them. Forge world wasn't that bad either but man...that lack of colors and effects made it pretty bland. Let's not even get started on the campaign maps being multiplayer maps that was just lazy. People can make fun of H3's map packs but it wasn't that bad.
Okay I see your points, whilst I don't agree with all of them I total understand where you're coming from so can see why you aren't as keen on Reach :) But yeah I think almost everyone loved Invasion at least, really wish they'd bring that back as with the engine nowadays they could make it so cinematic (as long as they don't sacrifice gameplay for visuals). And yeah anyone who voted for Invasion Slayer over regular Invasion, just why? :( I also quite like some of H3's map packs, but also I like (most) of Reach's maps as they work well for the gameplay it provides (but then that depends on whether you like the gameplay or not for if you like the maps right?). Some maps in Reach were an absolute pain I'll give you that for sure, but there were so many that I thought worked amazingly with the armour abilities! :)
I felt like the Map pack that contained Highlands was the best map. I still put hours into it because it was a Halo game and I'll stick to this series until the end. Another thing is I probably expected the game to be like the book which was not a good way to approach it. Reach the game and Reach the book are two totally different stories. Not only that we never got the true final mission. Which was supposed to be one more battle in space.
Oh i remember the scarab rumours! That woul've been cool as long as it didn't feel too on the rails imo!
Halo Reach is one of those Halo games where we will never truly know what Bungie was planning at the time. It seems like they had so many ideas but wanted to keep it simple.
Could it have maybe been because of console limitations? I know that Halo 4 had console limitation problems so maybe Reach too?
oDjento wrote:
While I'm not going to get into detail on anything here, it really is fascinating to see what players do and don't like about the Halo games. It's like people watching. Everyone is different in their own unique way
I entirely understand where you're coming from, not only seeing what people do and don't like, but also seeing how the people expressing their certain opinions articulate themselves. You get the professional, the troll, the child, the arguer, the pessimist, the optimist, and all sorts of other people. It's a lovely little virtual ecology to watch from a far. Getting involved can be risky though.
Getting involved is just as risky as engaging a stranger in political or religious discussions. It's better to just sit back, observe, and listen.
Oh god it really is, such a great comparison.
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
While I'm not going to get into detail on anything here, it really is fascinating to see what players do and don't like about the Halo games. It's like people watching. Everyone is different in their own unique way
I entirely understand where you're coming from, not only seeing what people do and don't like, but also seeing how the people expressing their certain opinions articulate themselves. You get the professional, the troll, the child, the arguer, the pessimist, the optimist, and all sorts of other people. It's a lovely little virtual ecology to watch from a far. Getting involved can be risky though.
Getting involved is just as risky as engaging a stranger in political or religious discussions. It's better to just sit back, observe, and listen.
Oh god it really is, such a great comparison.
Thank you
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
1. Halo 3
2. Halo 1
3. Halo 2
4. Halo Wars 2
5. Halo Wars 1
6. Halo 4
7. Halo 5
8. Halo Spartan Strike
9. Halo Spartan Assault
10. Halo: Reach

If you want to know why Reach is so low, you probably weren't on the original forums when the game came out. This game is what started that huge split in the Halo Community at least after awhile I had fun with Halo 4 and 5. Reach, those days were just over just memories of people constantly leaving and quitting and friends giving up on the franchise.
But in terms of how much fun you had with reach would you still put it so low? Causing a divide in the community isn't a bad thing usually, it offers up more talking points. You're just more likely to see the outspoken arseholes once people differ on their opinions of a game.
Nah, the first few weeks of the game not fun. I didn't remotely enjoy the game until the Highlands map. Ironically this is my favorite map in any Halo game because of the scenery in the background of the Highland Mountains being glassed. And no, dividing a community is actually a really big deal. People may crap on Halo 4 because of Multiplayer and crap on Halo 5's story but we can discuss Reach starting that divide. If you want to go even further we can even go to Halo 2's origin.
No, division creates a healthy debate. The community of Battlefield became pretty divided about Battlefield 1 compared to Battlefield 4. People now discuss the aspects that make both great. Yes, some people s**t on one or the other but those people were already arseholes and were always going to take issue with these things. You can still have fun by yourself or with your friends on whichever Halo game you choose, and it is not affected by a bunch of other people whining about a game you love. Take for example the new star wars film, The Last Jedi. Some people hate it. I personally love it (I understand it has flaws but what star wars film doesn't?) but my enjoyment isn't ruined because a bunch of other people hate it.

I do understand where you're coming from, but in terms of how a game plays and how much you enjoy it for all its different aspects it is kind of a void argument to make. If you legitimately don't like the game that is fine, as that is personal preference. Saying it is the worse because not everyone you knew liked it is just a bit ludicrous, I must say.

Therefore as I say this, I must look back at your reply. You first say "the first few weeks of the game not fun", then continue to say you didn't remotely enjoy it until Highlands came out. So which is it, didn't enjoy the first few weeks or not at all (anything about the game) until highlands? Just want clarification, as if it is the latter it means you're saying you didn't enjoy (or maybe even appreciate?) and aspects of Reach until 1 map came out, assuming that you then only continued to play (and enjoy) Reach by repeatedly playing this map over and over.

And yes whilst it may look like I've tried to call you out on how you worded your reply, you're right. But what I'm mainly trying to do is make you question whether you think Reach really is that bad just because of it dividing the community.
Gameplay wise, it felt slow and sluggish I get that we are Spartan IIIs in Mjolnir armor but it just felt awkward to play. Then the early mechanics like Bloom since to work fine for the DMR in concept but man...I hated that some people would spam at close range and still win. Then even though we are beating a dead horse Armor Lock was neded in the Beta when the grenades were nukes that shook the screen, but when the Jetpack Grenade combo got fixed it wasn't really needed. A lot of the maps were close range and the EMP and Grenade shedding were a bit too much. Not to mention it ruined vehicle play for splatters. The only thing I truly liked about Reach gameplay wise was Invasion. I didn't like Invasion Slayer but like Invasion especially Breakpoint. But that's about it. Arena was boring and even though it had the most objective gametypes no one seemed to play them. Forge world wasn't that bad either but man...that lack of colors and effects made it pretty bland. Let's not even get started on the campaign maps being multiplayer maps that was just lazy. People can make fun of H3's map packs but it wasn't that bad.
Okay I see your points, whilst I don't agree with all of them I total understand where you're coming from so can see why you aren't as keen on Reach :) But yeah I think almost everyone loved Invasion at least, really wish they'd bring that back as with the engine nowadays they could make it so cinematic (as long as they don't sacrifice gameplay for visuals). And yeah anyone who voted for Invasion Slayer over regular Invasion, just why? :( I also quite like some of H3's map packs, but also I like (most) of Reach's maps as they work well for the gameplay it provides (but then that depends on whether you like the gameplay or not for if you like the maps right?). Some maps in Reach were an absolute pain I'll give you that for sure, but there were so many that I thought worked amazingly with the armour abilities! :)
I felt like the Map pack that contained Highlands was the best map. I still put hours into it because it was a Halo game and I'll stick to this series until the end. Another thing is I probably expected the game to be like the book which was not a good way to approach it. Reach the game and Reach the book are two totally different stories. Not only that we never got the true final mission. Which was supposed to be one more battle in space.
Oh i remember the scarab rumours! That woul've been cool as long as it didn't feel too on the rails imo!
Halo Reach is one of those Halo games where we will never truly know what Bungie was planning at the time. It seems like they had so many ideas but wanted to keep it simple.
Could it have maybe been because of console limitations? I know that Halo 4 had console limitation problems so maybe Reach too?
Remember they also have to adhere to MS time limits for releases.
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
oDjento wrote:
1. Halo 3
2. Halo 1
3. Halo 2
4. Halo Wars 2
5. Halo Wars 1
6. Halo 4
7. Halo 5
8. Halo Spartan Strike
9. Halo Spartan Assault
10. Halo: Reach

If you want to know why Reach is so low, you probably weren't on the original forums when the game came out. This game is what started that huge split in the Halo Community at least after awhile I had fun with Halo 4 and 5. Reach, those days were just over just memories of people constantly leaving and quitting and friends giving up on the franchise.
But in terms of how much fun you had with reach would you still put it so low? Causing a divide in the community isn't a bad thing usually, it offers up more talking points. You're just more likely to see the outspoken arseholes once people differ on their opinions of a game.
Nah, the first few weeks of the game not fun. I didn't remotely enjoy the game until the Highlands map. Ironically this is my favorite map in any Halo game because of the scenery in the background of the Highland Mountains being glassed. And no, dividing a community is actually a really big deal. People may crap on Halo 4 because of Multiplayer and crap on Halo 5's story but we can discuss Reach starting that divide. If you want to go even further we can even go to Halo 2's origin.
No, division creates a healthy debate. The community of Battlefield became pretty divided about Battlefield 1 compared to Battlefield 4. People now discuss the aspects that make both great. Yes, some people s**t on one or the other but those people were already arseholes and were always going to take issue with these things. You can still have fun by yourself or with your friends on whichever Halo game you choose, and it is not affected by a bunch of other people whining about a game you love. Take for example the new star wars film, The Last Jedi. Some people hate it. I personally love it (I understand it has flaws but what star wars film doesn't?) but my enjoyment isn't ruined because a bunch of other people hate it.

I do understand where you're coming from, but in terms of how a game plays and how much you enjoy it for all its different aspects it is kind of a void argument to make. If you legitimately don't like the game that is fine, as that is personal preference. Saying it is the worse because not everyone you knew liked it is just a bit ludicrous, I must say.

Therefore as I say this, I must look back at your reply. You first say "the first few weeks of the game not fun", then continue to say you didn't remotely enjoy it until Highlands came out. So which is it, didn't enjoy the first few weeks or not at all (anything about the game) until highlands? Just want clarification, as if it is the latter it means you're saying you didn't enjoy (or maybe even appreciate?) and aspects of Reach until 1 map came out, assuming that you then only continued to play (and enjoy) Reach by repeatedly playing this map over and over.

And yes whilst it may look like I've tried to call you out on how you worded your reply, you're right. But what I'm mainly trying to do is make you question whether you think Reach really is that bad just because of it dividing the community.
Gameplay wise, it felt slow and sluggish I get that we are Spartan IIIs in Mjolnir armor but it just felt awkward to play. Then the early mechanics like Bloom since to work fine for the DMR in concept but man...I hated that some people would spam at close range and still win. Then even though we are beating a dead horse Armor Lock was neded in the Beta when the grenades were nukes that shook the screen, but when the Jetpack Grenade combo got fixed it wasn't really needed. A lot of the maps were close range and the EMP and Grenade shedding were a bit too much. Not to mention it ruined vehicle play for splatters. The only thing I truly liked about Reach gameplay wise was Invasion. I didn't like Invasion Slayer but like Invasion especially Breakpoint. But that's about it. Arena was boring and even though it had the most objective gametypes no one seemed to play them. Forge world wasn't that bad either but man...that lack of colors and effects made it pretty bland. Let's not even get started on the campaign maps being multiplayer maps that was just lazy. People can make fun of H3's map packs but it wasn't that bad.
Okay I see your points, whilst I don't agree with all of them I total understand where you're coming from so can see why you aren't as keen on Reach :) But yeah I think almost everyone loved Invasion at least, really wish they'd bring that back as with the engine nowadays they could make it so cinematic (as long as they don't sacrifice gameplay for visuals). And yeah anyone who voted for Invasion Slayer over regular Invasion, just why? :( I also quite like some of H3's map packs, but also I like (most) of Reach's maps as they work well for the gameplay it provides (but then that depends on whether you like the gameplay or not for if you like the maps right?). Some maps in Reach were an absolute pain I'll give you that for sure, but there were so many that I thought worked amazingly with the armour abilities! :)
I felt like the Map pack that contained Highlands was the best map. I still put hours into it because it was a Halo game and I'll stick to this series until the end. Another thing is I probably expected the game to be like the book which was not a good way to approach it. Reach the game and Reach the book are two totally different stories. Not only that we never got the true final mission. Which was supposed to be one more battle in space.
Oh i remember the scarab rumours! That woul've been cool as long as it didn't feel too on the rails imo!
Halo Reach is one of those Halo games where we will never truly know what Bungie was planning at the time. It seems like they had so many ideas but wanted to keep it simple.
Could it have maybe been because of console limitations? I know that Halo 4 had console limitation problems so maybe Reach too?
Remember they also have to adhere to MS time limits for releases.
Ah yeah true. Wasn't one of the reasons they left to make Destiny was because they didn't like the way Microsoft bossed them about or something? I swear I remember hearing something like this but can't exactly remember, it's been a while.
1] HL3
2] HLReach
3] HLwars1
4] HLCE
5] HL ODST
6] HL2
7] HL5
8] HL wars 2
9] and sadly HL4
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 9
  4. 10
  5. 11
  6. ...
  7. 12