Jereel Hunter said:
disolitude said:
CollectiveCynic said:
That's good to hear. May not be as good as Halo: CE, but at least I know it's better than Halo 2 & 3.
|
I find it funny that people say Halo 3's campaign was poor.
Sure it may not have been groundbreaking and original like Halo 1 or attempted to be epic like Halo 2, but it is easily the most focused and fast paced Halo campaign (till ODST which kinda added stealth elements and wasn't as action oriented)
I don't think there is a single point in Halo 3 when I sad "damn, I really hate playing this part"... Halo 1 had that long repetitive second half which was pretty much the same coridor fighting with flood over and over. And Halo 2 was...like you said a huge unfocused mess.
|
I never minded the endless corridors of Halo:CE, because they made sense. You're plodding your way through a massive structure with vast hallways... And considering the sweeping array of areas you traveled through in Halo:CE (deserts, tundras, islands, swamps, etc, you name it) I didn't mind spending a while in the Library.
For me, I can't put my finger on it, but i just enjoyed Halo 3 the least. It wasn't the story... something about it to me was... less fun. Maybe because it and Halo:2 largely lacked the feel that your WERE master chief. in Halo 1, you virtually never was cutscenes, you learned everything through your own eyes and ears. It was a very "you against the world" feel, and while you were occasionally given a few marines to help, they never lasted long, and it was back to you, fighting your way through endless antagonists alone.
Halo 2/3 didn't have that, but they also didn't have the (relatively) competent squad of allies feel that Reach has. When you fight with other spartans, they don't just charge gunfire and instantly die. Bigger scale, but you're not doing it alone. Also a good feel for the game.
|
