Forums / Games / Halo: Reach and Legacy Halo

why did no one like spartan ops?

OP esqurridiso

Well the Halo 4 forums are gone, so...
This may be a noob question, but why?
I mean, sure, it was not as epic as firefight, but, specially the later missions, I never really foumd something wrong with it. Maybe reusing maps so many times, I guess...?
Well the Halo 4 forums are gone, so...
This may be a noob question, but why?
I mean, sure, it was not as epic as firefight, but, specially the later missions, I never really foumd something wrong with it. Maybe reusing maps so many times, I guess...?
Likely because, unlike firefight, there wasn’t too much replay value. It was also presented in a way that implied that we’d be getting more missions, given that the included ones were “Season 1.” The biggest gripe that I believe many had with Spartan Ops was that it replaced firefight and was less fun.
It was fun, but only problem I had was you literally play on the same levels but different objectives & different enemies, or just got boring after a while
It was just a grind-fest. Even when playing it single player, there's no penalty for dying. They treated it like this additional campaign experience. But, unlike campaign there was nothing at stake and absolutely no penalty for dying or messing up. In fact, when I ran out of ammo, I found it easier to just intentionally die so that I could come back to where I left off with full ammo.

There's absolutely no way to lose or to fail at Spartan Ops. Just keep grinding away and throwing bodies at the enemy until you eventually win.
I think it was a combination of there being no stakes and consequently no rewards. The story during the missions themselves was also pretty weak and inconsequential to the broader narrative.
I dont know. I always liked Spartan Ops. I always looked more on the feature that makes your Spartan be part of the main storyline.
I think it was a combination of there being no stakes and consequently no rewards. The story during the missions themselves was also pretty weak and inconsequential to the broader narrative.
This sums up how I felt. The missions needed to have more stakes and the story could of been stronger. I like the idea but the excutation was bad.
Probably because it was a part of Halo 4.
I myself I think share a similar opinion. I find Spartan Ops to be fun, but there was no incentive to play it after the first time. Whenever I play Halo 4 for the story, I play the campaign. I find the story in Spartan Ops to be no where near as interesting as the campaign. The gameplay is similar to Firefight, and Firefight itself reminds me of classic arcade beat-em-up games like Final Fight. It's pretty fun, but can get a bit repetitive.
It has no replay value until the last few missions. It's extremely repetitive, and there's no customization available other than skulls and difficulty. It was a terrible replacement for Fire Fight, which was at its peak in Reach with all of the customization options available to the player. Also, if you have DLC armor, you can't use that in Spartan Ops, as it will be replaced with non-DLC armor, which sucks.

Did I mention it's also extremely repetitive? Not just in your enemies, but the levels as well. It's more repetitive than the second half of Combat Evolved's campaign. Imagine having just finished The Library. Now, you've just played through another level. Guess what? You get to go through The Library again!

That's how repetitive it feels. And nobody likes that.
I think most of the hate stemmed from the initial fan reaction to Halo 4 in general. Fans didn't seem to enjoy the direction gameplay was taken. Halo 3 and Halo Reach were still really heavy fan favorites at the time as well. Adding to that, the missions were fairly dry and repetitive in my opinion. It seemed like an attempt to combine Firefight with additional campaign missions. I enjoyed the first play through but that was about it. I do need to go through again on MCC to earn the achievements though.