Forums / Games / Halo 4

Why do you like Halo 4?

OP EditorialCub2

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
I really enjoyed the campaign. I liked the enemies for the most part and the story. Some of the cut scenes were highly memorable, especially when the humans had their faces melted off, lol. But overall, it was just a really polished game and visually well done. The pistol was effective again and game-play was very smooth. It's my 2nd campaign behind CE.
Right there with you! Good to see other people who liked the story. My only problem is that the campaign was too linear, too short, and there just isn’t enough ammo in the campaign. I really like the way Halo 4 starts a little like Halo CE with Master Chief awakening out of cryosleep and crash landing on a new world. Pistol is perfect in Halo 4, sounds good, looks good, is powerful, but not OP like in Halo CE. Very balanced all around. Visually, it isn’t much different than Halo 5 and compares to new games even though it’s six years old.
The levels definitely were a bit more linear that I'd prefer, but I still enjoyed it a lot. And yeah it has a similar look as Halo 5, but considering it came out on the 360 it was impressive for its time.
I play Halo4 BTB exclusively on MCC as I like the maps and it's just crazy lol. Jetpacks, Camo, Annoying shields just adds so much fun and randomness. It reminds me of Reach which is my first Halo game.
i love Halo 4
Three reasons... #1 the BTB game mode ever Dominion.... And #2 best action sack game mode ever Husky raid... #3 your "teammates" can't betray you for power weapons such as the sniper rifle.
To put it simply, when you get a kill streak going, you feel so good doing so. Some of my best memories were with my mates in Infinity Slayer absolutely wrecking havoc on the other team. A little power hungry? maybe. A good time for all of us that night? absolutely!
I enjoy the multiplayer for Halo 4 as an alternative to Call of Duty, when I want to play a CoD like game with a more Halo feel to it. The team slayer format for Halo multiplayer is perfect and there is nothing wrong with it, I think 343 should stick to it, but sometimes I feel like mixing it up a little bit; a bit of "Ordinance Ready" doesn't hurt now and then. Now I can understand the outrage from Day 1 purchasers of the game, it must have been a shock for them to boot up the games multiplayer and for there to be a load out system but it is, in hindsight, not too bad.
I like the spartan customization because you make it yours and the stances added more to that
I like Halo 4 because it's the first Halo game I played.
I bought Halo 4 within the week it launched and I can't say I've ever enjoyed it. I thought the campaigns gameplay was weak and the story didn't connect to the original trilogy. Nothing to say of the multiplayer as I never got into it.

I'm sure the Halo 4 forum has the highest concentration of players that consider their favorite Halo to be Halo 4. So I just want to talk to you all. Just tell me what your favorite part of Halo 4 is, what part of the game I should try, etc.

Thanks.
It's no Halo 3 or Reach, but it's Halo. I'd rather a bad halo full of hope then no Halo after Bungie.
A general comment to add to this discussion (a few people have hit on this sub-topic)...

I think Halo 4 'plays' WAY more like Halo 1-3 than Halo 5.

Now, I'm not talking even starts, or the pro circuit. I'm strictly speaking to gameplay. Halo 5 is an entirely different game (that I enjoy) from a gameplay perspective. Halo 4, still plays like Halo 1-3 (actually, extremely close to Halo 1, I've done some side by side compares) from a moving / shooting perspective (I know sprint is there in 4, but I wasn't using it as tinkering).

Halo 5 is the gameplay black sheep in the series, by a mile.
Cause its sucks. Boom
H4 doesn't have much replay value for me personally but I like they brought back the Battle Rifle and Master Chief and reduced BLOOM that was a downside of halo reach multiplayer and made it less fun for me anyway. I wish H4 had a better in game ranking system and maybe I'd have a better time enjoying the game. But ye, BR Master Chief and barely any BLOOM are my things what I like about H4.
You should check out Act Man on Youtube. He does an incredibly good job dissecting exactly why Halo 4 game play makes the game inherently not fun. He also delves into the good and bad of the story. I think the video is called "Why Halo 4's Campaign is so Bad" or something like that. It's not actually an overwhelmingly negative review, as the name might suggest, but it's a pretty in depth analysis of exactly why the game didn't live up to the original trilogy
Yeah I totally disagreed with the Act Man as well. Almost everything he said was just, demonstrably, untrue.

"Halo 4 only has closed levels, and there's only one way through them" - this is totally untrue, nearly every level in the game gives you options on how you want to go about completing objectives. He's right that there's nothing in Halo 4 to rival Covenant in Halo 3, but that's an entirely different point, because Halo 4 is easily a more open game than Halo 2.

Speaking of Halo 2, the argument that closed levels are a bad thing is also immediately wrong (at least for me), as the tank section in Outskirts has become my favourite section of gameplay in that game, and it is literally a corridor, with very few legitimate options for differing gameplay.

And the hate for Prometheans - I mean I get that they aren't flood and you like flood, but I found them to be much more enjoyable enemies to fight than, for example, rocket launcher wielding flood in Halo 1-3, and I thought the audio/visual cues on the Knights were much more pronounced than they were for tank form flood.

The argument he further makes that you don't get to make choices in combat is also just laughable to me, and I just cannot for the life of me parse it in any way that it makes sense.

Finally the story was so much more thematically tight than it's ever been in a Halo game. Reach is the only other Halo game I see as coming near Halo 4 when it comes to storytelling. Some people will dislike Halo 4's story because it's undoubtedly less bombastic than the 3 main games preceding it. Chief doesn't save the universe. Chief doesn't even save Cortana; and I think some people view that as lessening the Chief's place in the universe. I can't really argue with that; it is removing power from him. But to me at least, the humanisation of a character that was so stoic finally made the story into one really worth paying attention to.

And that last point really nicely works into why I love Halo 4, and why I despised the story of Halo 5.
Halo 4 had thought out themes. It set up story beats early on, then provided payoff later. It presented Chief in such a way that he was a human and his thoughts were imminently understandable. The use of Chief's body language to convey his emotions was also so powerful. And the story all seemed so deliberate; how fitting is the legendary ending, given the entire game's B-plot revolved around making Chief a human being?

Beyond the story though, I agree with the sentiment that Big Team Infinity Slayer was a really big positive in Halo 4; this is definitely going to be contentious, but I think the waypoints placed above power weapon spawns, and the placement of the incineration cannon and railgun on Settler make it one of the greatest maps that has ever been used for big team battle, with my experience being of continuous tug-of-wars for control of the hill on the map. No other map has naturally worked like that in my experience, because typically hills just don't produce as large of an advantage for the holding team as the hill did here. I remember continuous fights for the middle on Eden, and fights over the top area on Longbow.

I also hold the contentious opinion that the inclusion of ordinance improved BTB, because it could really mix up the gameplay, depending on your ordinance choice, and armour abilities meant that everyone could play in a way that worked well for them.

I do concede though, that the last two things should never have had a place in competitive matchmaking.

I also think that new weapons, like the boltshot, and light rifle (both having alternate fire modes), were really interesting additions to the sandbox to play with, and I just loved the Sticky Detonator. I think it to be a great injustice that it didn't make a return in Halo 5, because it did provide a lot of strategic options.

Finally, back on the 360, Halo 4 was an absolute marvel in terms of the visuals it pulled off on the Xbox 360, I mean, look at the game, then just think about the fact that the 360 only had 512MB of RAM. It's just incredible that they could pull off such striking visuals back then. I would argue that to this day, it looks better than quite a number of AAA Xbox One games.
You should check out Act Man on Youtube. He does an incredibly good job dissecting exactly why Halo 4 game play makes the game inherently not fun. He also delves into the good and bad of the story. I think the video is called "Why Halo 4's Campaign is so Bad" or something like that. It's not actually an overwhelmingly negative review, as the name might suggest, but it's a pretty in depth analysis of exactly why the game didn't live up to the original trilogy
Yeah I totally disagreed with the Act Man as well. Almost everything he said was just, demonstrably, untrue.

"Halo 4 only has closed levels, and there's only one way through them" - this is totally untrue, nearly every level in the game gives you options on how you want to go about completing objectives. He's right that there's nothing in Halo 4 to rival Covenant in Halo 3, but that's an entirely different point, because Halo 4 is easily a more open game than Halo 2.

Speaking of Halo 2, the argument that closed levels are a bad thing is also immediately wrong (at least for me), as the tank section in Outskirts has become my favourite section of gameplay in that game, and it is literally a corridor, with very few legitimate options for differing gameplay.

And the hate for Prometheans - I mean I get that they aren't flood and you like flood, but I found them to be much more enjoyable enemies to fight than, for example, rocket launcher wielding flood in Halo 1-3, and I thought the audio/visual cues on the Knights were much more pronounced than they were for tank form flood.

The argument he further makes that you don't get to make choices in combat is also just laughable to me, and I just cannot for the life of me parse it in any way that it makes sense.

Finally the story was so much more thematically tight than it's ever been in a Halo game. Reach is the only other Halo game I see as coming near Halo 4 when it comes to storytelling. Some people will dislike Halo 4's story because it's undoubtedly less bombastic than the 3 main games preceding it. Chief doesn't save the universe. Chief doesn't even save Cortana; and I think some people view that as lessening the Chief's place in the universe. I can't really argue with that; it is removing power from him. But to me at least, the humanisation of a character that was so stoic finally made the story into one really worth paying attention to.

And that last point really nicely works into why I love Halo 4, and why I despised the story of Halo 5.
Halo 4 had thought out themes. It set up story beats early on, then provided payoff later. It presented Chief in such a way that he was a human and his thoughts were imminently understandable. The use of Chief's body language to convey his emotions was also so powerful. And the story all seemed so deliberate; how fitting is the legendary ending, given the entire game's B-plot revolved around making Chief a human being?

Beyond the story though, I agree with the sentiment that Big Team Infinity Slayer was a really big positive in Halo 4; this is definitely going to be contentious, but I think the waypoints placed above power weapon spawns, and the placement of the incineration cannon and railgun on Settler make it one of the greatest maps that has ever been used for big team battle, with my experience being of continuous tug-of-wars for control of the hill on the map. No other map has naturally worked like that in my experience, because typically hills just don't produce as large of an advantage for the holding team as the hill did here. I remember continuous fights for the middle on Eden, and fights over the top area on Longbow.

I also hold the contentious opinion that the inclusion of ordinance improved BTB, because it could really mix up the gameplay, depending on your ordinance choice, and armour abilities meant that everyone could play in a way that worked well for them.

I do concede though, that the last two things should never have had a place in competitive matchmaking.

I also think that new weapons, like the boltshot, and light rifle (both having alternate fire modes), were really interesting additions to the sandbox to play with, and I just loved the Sticky Detonator. I think it to be a great injustice that it didn't make a return in Halo 5, because it did provide a lot of strategic options.

Finally, back on the 360, Halo 4 was an absolute marvel in terms of the visuals it pulled off on the Xbox 360, I mean, look at the game, then just think about the fact that the 360 only had 512MB of RAM. It's just incredible that they could pull off such striking visuals back then. I would argue that to this day, it looks better than quite a number of AAA Xbox One games.
But it doesn’t feel like a halo game. Reach already changed a lot, but halo 4 changes too much, too fast (even chief and Cortana). The change is so jarring and should have been done more slowly, across multiple games.
I loved Regicide, Dominion, and Ricochet. Great additions to the franchise. I was really sad to see them not supported in MM in H5.
Swaggy5035 wrote:
You should check out Act Man on Youtube. He does an incredibly good job dissecting exactly why Halo 4 game play makes the game inherently not fun. He also delves into the good and bad of the story. I think the video is called "Why Halo 4's Campaign is so Bad" or something like that. It's not actually an overwhelmingly negative review, as the name might suggest, but it's a pretty in depth analysis of exactly why the game didn't live up to the original trilogy
Yeah I totally disagreed with the Act Man as well. Almost everything he said was just, demonstrably, untrue.

"Halo 4 only has closed levels, and there's only one way through them" - this is totally untrue, nearly every level in the game gives you options on how you want to go about completing objectives. He's right that there's nothing in Halo 4 to rival Covenant in Halo 3, but that's an entirely different point, because Halo 4 is easily a more open game than Halo 2.

Speaking of Halo 2, the argument that closed levels are a bad thing is also immediately wrong (at least for me), as the tank section in Outskirts has become my favourite section of gameplay in that game, and it is literally a corridor, with very few legitimate options for differing gameplay.

And the hate for Prometheans - I mean I get that they aren't flood and you like flood, but I found them to be much more enjoyable enemies to fight than, for example, rocket launcher wielding flood in Halo 1-3, and I thought the audio/visual cues on the Knights were much more pronounced than they were for tank form flood.

The argument he further makes that you don't get to make choices in combat is also just laughable to me, and I just cannot for the life of me parse it in any way that it makes sense.

Finally the story was so much more thematically tight than it's ever been in a Halo game. Reach is the only other Halo game I see as coming near Halo 4 when it comes to storytelling. Some people will dislike Halo 4's story because it's undoubtedly less bombastic than the 3 main games preceding it. Chief doesn't save the universe. Chief doesn't even save Cortana; and I think some people view that as lessening the Chief's place in the universe. I can't really argue with that; it is removing power from him. But to me at least, the humanisation of a character that was so stoic finally made the story into one really worth paying attention to.

And that last point really nicely works into why I love Halo 4, and why I despised the story of Halo 5.
Halo 4 had thought out themes. It set up story beats early on, then provided payoff later. It presented Chief in such a way that he was a human and his thoughts were imminently understandable. The use of Chief's body language to convey his emotions was also so powerful. And the story all seemed so deliberate; how fitting is the legendary ending, given the entire game's B-plot revolved around making Chief a human being?

Beyond the story though, I agree with the sentiment that Big Team Infinity Slayer was a really big positive in Halo 4; this is definitely going to be contentious, but I think the waypoints placed above power weapon spawns, and the placement of the incineration cannon and railgun on Settler make it one of the greatest maps that has ever been used for big team battle, with my experience being of continuous tug-of-wars for control of the hill on the map. No other map has naturally worked like that in my experience, because typically hills just don't produce as large of an advantage for the holding team as the hill did here. I remember continuous fights for the middle on Eden, and fights over the top area on Longbow.

I also hold the contentious opinion that the inclusion of ordinance improved BTB, because it could really mix up the gameplay, depending on your ordinance choice, and armour abilities meant that everyone could play in a way that worked well for them.

I do concede though, that the last two things should never have had a place in competitive matchmaking.

I also think that new weapons, like the boltshot, and light rifle (both having alternate fire modes), were really interesting additions to the sandbox to play with, and I just loved the Sticky Detonator. I think it to be a great injustice that it didn't make a return in Halo 5, because it did provide a lot of strategic options.

Finally, back on the 360, Halo 4 was an absolute marvel in terms of the visuals it pulled off on the Xbox 360, I mean, look at the game, then just think about the fact that the 360 only had 512MB of RAM. It's just incredible that they could pull off such striking visuals back then. I would argue that to this day, it looks better than quite a number of AAA Xbox One games.
But it doesn’t feel like a halo game. Reach already changed a lot, but halo 4 changes too much, too fast (even chief and Cortana). The change is so jarring and should have been done more slowly, across multiple games.
I played every Halo game starting with CE and I loved what they did with Master Chief and Cortana. My only problem with the art style is that the Covenant are ugly. As for gameplay, I didn’t get Xbox Live until 2016 but immediately loved BTB in Halo 4. As a matter of fact, I was just playing it a couple hours ago. I’ll never get bored of Ragnarok and Vortex!
I kind of liked the freedom of options in the multiplayer. Being able to choose your weapons makes it so you can experience more of the sandbox more often if you want. However anything besides the br is usually a disadvantage. Overall halo 4 was a step in the wrong direction mp wise. Also campaign gameplay kind of devolved to light rifle spam on legendary, but the game as a whole is very unique. I go back to it frequently just to experience it. I don't think loadouts or weapon drops should ever be removed from it. It should be kept as is even though it doesn't really work to well. Also one other good thing was the execution of the story. Although the Diadact really needed work.
Storytelling.
Graphics, community wasn't extremely sweaty like in H5, loadouts, and MY PERPETUAL ACTIVE CAMO USAGE.

343i Active camo armor mods for Halo 6
Spartan Ops. its just one thing, but I love it
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3