You know what, thought I, as I filled in the entries for "best MOBA" and "best Doom game?" Polls are fun. There should always be more polls. But preferably polls where the outcome isn't decided beforehand. I guessed beforehand that the "best MOBA" would be voted as LoL, and it was. I guessed beforehand that the least popular Doom game would be Doom 3, and lo and behold, it was. So, thought I, what series can I give where there's a wide variety of entries, but little consensus as to what the strongest title in said series is?
Well, there is Halo I guess. A series I don't see pop up much here, but one that I love, ranking highly in personal "best FPS games" and even "best games of all time." The series I feel finds the perfect middleground between the likes of, say, Doom (space marines, variety of enemies, etc.) and, say, Call of Duty (heavy narrative focus). In essence, Halo does combine the best of both worlds for me in the FPS genre, and its multiplayer is nothing to sneer at either. Or maybe I'm wrong. Or right. Or something else.
Anyway, voting time. I won't discuss each of these games at length, as doing so could take up a thread all by itself, but voting for all the Halo games I've played, I'll rank them as thus:
I would say the first Halo is the best because they were able to build an incredibly interesting world with a surprising level of depth given the nature of a lot of games released at that time. And it's story is still really compelling.
Halo 2 comes in a close second because it took what made Halo so great and built upon it.
Halo 4 Because it at least tried to do something new and I loved the whole Cortana storyline
Halo Reach Because it was certainly more fun to play than Halo 3 and had some pretty good setpeices. I hate it for destroying the cannon though.
And finally Halo 3 because I felt it wasn't able to deliver or added anything new
still a game with it's fun moments though but rather disappointing
For Story wise? halo 2. I love Arbiter. For gameplay, Halo 5. I feel like they got Halo 5 gameplay pretty well balance after the bland and unbalance games like Halo Reach and 4.
Also while I know I'm probably in the minority, but I feel like they handle DLC and Microtransactions better than anyone has to date. DLC being free and Micro only really affecting Warzone, which if you play the game you get a shit ton of money anyways. If only I could get good teammates for once in my life..
I haven't played past Reach, but I'd say I like 2 and 3 pretty much equally. 2 had the best story, but 3 had the most fun campaign. Both of their multiplayer were the peak of the series for me.
Except Reach has you actually doing stuff with a team of Spartans who all should be quite capable on their own. Its not like Halo 1 where you clearly are the best suited for -everything- compared to the squishy marines.
Oh I know. I love Reach. Great game. Just pointing out being the rookie who does everything for the entire time is the premise of all FPSs I've ever heard of.
Oh I know. I love Reach. Great game. Just pointing out being the rookie who does everything for the entire time is the premise of all FPSs I've ever heard of.
Its not always so glaring. There is a difference between a game that makes you do everything, and a game that makes you do everything after explicitly telling you not to.
The following are the thoughts of a Bungie-era Halo fan who hardly ever touched the multiplayer component. I'll only be focusing on the Bungie FPS titles (for what its worth, I found Halo Wars enjoyable, if a bit clunky).
Wall-o-text inbound; you have been warned.
Halo: CE will always hold a special place in my heart. It was the game that introduced me to the series, after all. The visuals, the scale, the story, the responsive controls, the AI...it was like nothing I had seen in a console shooter before. The first five levels rank as some of my all-time favorite FPS experiences. It had the best finale of the series to boot; a true white-knuckle race to the finish as literally everything explodes around you.
Also, Warthog jumps. [http://www.warthog-jump.com/] You can't do that in the other games. The physics engine lent itself to all sorts of entertainment. I remember inviting a friend over for some co-op play, only to spend most of our time launching vehicles off of various ramps and ledges. The best one we found was vaulting over a wrecked Wraith tank in a Ghost. Not only could you get insane air, but you could do all sorts of spins and ollies if you angled it right.
That said, the game had some glaring flaws. While I had a blast fighting the Covenant, I can't really say the same for the Flood. While the former kept things interesting by implementing actual tactics, the latter brainlessly threw waves of bodies at you. I get that it fits thematically with the nature of the Flood, but it makes for boring combat. It's an issue that's plagued all of the main Bungie titles; the Flood just aren't a fun enemy to fight. There was also the issue of wildly imbalanced weapons, from the useless Assault Rifle to the ridiculously powerful pistol. That said, it kind of added to the game's charm looking back. I was sad to see the pistol get nerfed into oblivion for the sequels.
Not gonna lie, I had a love-hate relationship with Halo 2 for quite some time. This was mostly due to letting myself get carried away by the hype machine and promotional material. Developers and publishers misleading consumers with "bullshot" promo material is nothing new, as the infamous E3 "demo" for Halo 2 proved: (Ignore the title, it was 2003)
Bungie themselves later admitted it was all "smoke and mirrors," as the Xbox didn't have the horsepower to run the engine they used. They were retooling the game from practically the ground up at the time, but Microsoft mandated they show something impressive for E3. Thus, the bullshot. Regardless, the end result had me excited for a game that was markedly different from the one I got. Couple that with sloppier AI, lackluster boss battles (testaments to the game's troubled development) and the blatant "buy an Xbox 2!" cliffhangar ending and I couldn't help but feel somewhat burned. It took some time before I could appreciate the game for what it was, not what I wanted it to be.
Waiting for Halo 3 was like a roller coaster ride; a long build-up period, followed by a burst of euphoria quickly followed by a feeling of "well, that was fun...moving on!" Despite enjoying myself thoroughly enjoying the campaign, I didn't play through it nearly as many times as the previous games. I chalk it up to the proper closure the game provided. All major plot points resolved, all loose ends tied. I couldn't help but feel a wellspring of emotions watching the Chief return to cryo-sleep, the same state we first met him all those years ago. It was a fitting send-off to the character and the series as a whole. I had finished the fight.
Then the spinoffs happened, and I fell in love with the series all over again.
In my opinion, if you're going to make a persistent, expansive universe like Halo, the best decision you can make is to branch off from the main story at some point and explore other characters and locations. Both ODST and Reach pulled this off with aplomb in their own ways. Indeed, I enjoyed both titles more than Halo 2 and Halo 3. They weren't afraid to tread off the beaten path and explore something new (There was also no Flood to be found, which may have helped). ODST was quite enjoyable with it's almost noir-like campaign setting and Firefight mode (even if the ODSTs were a bit too Spartan-like with their abilities), but Reach was in a league all of its own.
It's hard for me to convey just how impressed I was by Reach. It's like Bungie took the elements I liked most from previous games and put them all together, as well as adding some worthy new additions to the formula. Most of all, it was the emotional experience that knocked it out of the park for me. The game excels at making you feel the stress of a seemingly hopeless situation as UNSC forces crumble and squadmates start to die one by one. Every time you score a minor victory it's almost immediately undercut by a catastrophic defeat outside of your control. It's a shining example of how taking narrative agency away from the player can be effective under the right circumstances. It's also the only Halo game with a final level that can stand toe-to-toe with Halo:CE in terms of the impression it left on me.
"Current Objective: Survive"
Then the first cracks appear...
If I had one major complaint, it's that the events depicted in the game completely contradict what supposedly happened according to the excellent Halo: The Fall of Reach novel. There have been both fan and official attempts at retconning this, but they always come across as absurdly convoluted. Simply put, there is no possible way both accounts are canonical within the same timeline.
Perhaps more than even Halo 3, Reach was the ultimate send-off for the series. Not only had the story gone full circle ending where it began, but it was also Bungie's last hurrah before they moved on. It was at that moment that I decided it was time to let go as well, while the series still had its dignity. There was proper closure. This time I had well and truly finished the fight. It's a decision I've stuck by to this day, and I haven't even bothered checking out 343's Microsoft-mandated franchise milking. Based on what I've seen and heard from fans, I'd say my decision was a wise one.
TL;DR: Halo: CE or Halo: Reach, depending on how nostalgic I'm feeling.
I guess ODST. I've personally never been a massive fan of the series' gameplay but always enjoyed the story and expanded universe. So a game where we aren't Master Chief and explore a more grounded story was pretty interesting. It's a shame it's development time was limited so even though you were just a human you could flip tanks and whatnot, which take you out of it a bit. I think it would have worked better with more development and felt more like Star Wars: Republic Commando, where mundane enemies to the Jedi like Super Battle Droids where a real threat to you. Doing the same for Brutes, Hunters etc would have been pretty great.
Even with that though, it's still my favourite thanks to the story, setting and characters. Halo Wars was also great with a fresh take on the series, but for me ODST just edges it out.
On the opposite end, I really didn't like Halo 4. It's story felt completely unnecessary and I disliked the redesigns of all the enemies and weapons, and the gameplay was uninteresting as ever. I ended up not finishing it as a result.
Man, this is a hard choice for me. I eventually chose Combat Evolved because I have such fond memories of it as a kid, and even now it pulls me back in so easily, what with the HD remake and all. Notable runners up are ODST and Reach.
On one hand, I love Halo 2s campaign. I got a lot of mileage out of it when I was a wee lad. Also split screen multiplayer with the bros.
On the other, I love Halo 3s multiplayer. I got a lot of mileage out of that as well. I would still play it if it had a larger population. I actually played some with my brothers last christmas, and it was still a blast to play!
Hmmmm, decision, decisions.
I'll vote 2 because it needs some loving in the polls.
Halo history: CE and Morrowind convinced me to get an Xbox, and pretty much get back into console gaming, so I have a lot of sentimental affection for the series.
ODST would be my favourite; great change of pace and structure, with one of Marty's best scores. Plus, it was ostensibly a mash-up between Halo and Firefly - with a spot of Battlestar Galactica added for good measure - so it was incredibly hard not to just be won over by its charm. That game had more heart than any of the other Halo's (perhaps until 4), and I felt it represented the IP at its strongest in terms of core campaign gameplay, narrative, and MP.
If I had to [unconventionally] list 'em I suppose I'd go with---
First = ODST Last = Reach
---with all the others in between.
...that's not to say I rate ODST so far above the rest, more than it's my only clear favourite given just how much I enjoyed the setting, tone, different structure, and cast. All the other Halo's were enjoyable and/or iconic in their own ways. Reach was a superb package and all its component parts were well crafted, but I felt it had no need to ever even exist. Loved the increasingly grounded aesthetic and tone, squad focus, as well as the feature of a customisable gender-select Spartan (something I've missed ever since), but I don't believe it added a single damn thing to the lore or to any greater understanding/insight into the Chief, Cortana, or the world - a letdown compounded by the fact that I got the collector's edition and had diligently devoured Halsey's journal before starting the Campaign.
Reach was the only Halo that genuinely disappointed me, almost from start to finish given it felt like it was just treading water. When the credits rolled I was sat there thinking 'Really? Was that it?'. No new story elements or lore, no real revolution in gameplay - just a mundane, pointless swansong for Bungie. It felt like a contractual obligation more than a game. The only real work of art of any enduring note for Reach was Halsey's journal. It took me a few years to appreciate the game's rather daringly bleak tone, but even that can't save it.
Had no interest in Halo Wars, and whilst I really enjoyed 4 for its Cortana arc (some of the best writing in the entire series) and music (which - courtesy of Davidge and Jinnouchi - I believe's arguably better than any Marty provided, no less[footnote]Caveat re the music: Marty's scores were far better integrated and used by Bungie, and were more cohesive overall. But for me the increased production values and Davidge's sense of more sophisticated - yet still bold - melody and arrangements lead to some of the best individual pieces in the entire series. Hell, at times - at its best - I feel Davidge's score matches any great, mainstream cinematic score, e.g. from Zimmer or Thomas Newman, and for me Marty's never quite hit those heights.
I suppose, to simplify it further; Marty provided genuinely great game scores, Davidge and Jinnouchi provided better music. Halo's certainly been blessed with its music, regardless of era.[/footnote]), it was painfully conservative in its combat and mission structure, and the new badguys were mind warpingly bland. Dreary and lazy weapon designs, too, almost unforgivably so on the 'aliens' side of the fence.
Burying the interesting backstory lore in frikkin' out-of-the-way terminals was a terrible idea, too, and left the impression that Halo 4 hadn't been thought out well at all in terms of how to introduce its new lore alongside the Cortana arc. Had the level layouts and goals been inventive or engaging I wouldn't have minded so much, but so much of 4 felt like a compromise. It either didn't have the time required to make it something truly special, or it simply didn't have anyone with a clear enough vision to push it forward.
...again, caveat; a 'bad' Halo is - or was - typically leagues ahead of most other games, so I'm not suggesting it was an especially poor product. It just had the classic trilogy plus ODST to compare itself to, so in some areas it came up painfully short. Having the best writing and music in the series (ditto its visual and audio depiction of the Chief) wasn't enough to really make it stand out amongst its siblings.
Halo 4 also rather coincided with me simply being done with conventional FPS's, which certainly contributed to why I've still only ever played it once all the way through. I've watched many of its key cinematics several times over the years, though (ditto many listens to the best tracks from the superb OST), and now I feel the series should just morph or reboot as a film franchise and leave games behind.
/edit - goes without saying, given this post, that I've not played 5. I had looked forward to 4's story being continued, but absolutely nothing about 5's design appealed to me. If it ever gets offered as a freebie on XBL, or massively discounted, I'll check it out. But otherwise I'm probably more or less done with Halo.
I didn't play online on consoles until I got a 360 back in 2006, so play Halo online for the first time was amazing. I also met a bunch of friends from playing Halo 3.
I voted halo: CE. If I had to rank them I would rank them CE, 2, Reach, ODST, 3, though all of them are great. Halo CE is pretty much my favourite game. I have by now played it to the point where I know it a little too well. There are many things I could say about the games, which I won't do now because I am tired but I would like to take this opportunity to make the case that halo: ce's pistol is only op when you expect it to work as a pistol. The battle rifle in 2 and 3 or DMR in reach weren't that much weaker. The shotgun (in single player), sniper rifle and the rocket launcher where all better weapons. It is a high tier weapon, better than the covenant weapons you pick up or the hilariously weak assault rifle and it is less unwieldy and has more ammo than the sniper rifle and the rocket launcher, but it is hardly that overpowered.
As for those other games with the same name, that I pettily and bitterly dislike. I haven't played halo 5 and was unimpressed by halo 4. Halo 4 is still not a bad game, but I have 5 other games to compare it to, that are all better. Halo 4 had no reason for existing storywise, did nothing interesting with the gameplay, had inferior forge to reach, couldn't recapture the sp gameplay of ce and 2 or the mp gameplay of 2 and 3.
Your brief paragraph on what makes Halo's gameplay appealing does a pretty good job at summarising why I find the gameplay appealing.
Halo 2 - Great
Halo 3: ODST - Great
Halo: CE - Great
Halo 3 - Good
Halo Wars - Mediocre
Halo: Reach - Mediocre
Halo 4 - Sub-par
and from what little I played of 5, it'd probably be about even to 4. The gameplay seemed much better though.
2 and ODST are very close together for me. I'd say 2 is the best as it was the game that built on the solid original and expanded the universe. It's still probably the most rich of the games in that regard. The Arbiter missions and constant focus on the Covenant also really add a lot to it.
And briefly thoughts on the other ones.
CE is still an incredibly good game today, and the intimate setting hasn't been topped not even by ODST, but outside of a lot of nice organic moments, gameplay wise it's probably among the weakest.
3's campaign is fairly mediocre and feels rushed, but still quite the romp and the multiplayer is the best in the series.
Wars gets an A+ for effort and respect to the series, but the gameplay is admittedly broken and weak.
Reach felt too scared to do anything but tread water but at least its ending was top notch.
Halo 4 is so very bad and anyone who's read my posts will know I would go on for paragraphs if I had the energy for it.
In terms of gameplay and variety I go with Halo: Reach. The story, despite the ending being set in stone, was also a pretty damn good one. Combat Evolved is my number 2 but after that the jury is out. I had a lot of problems with spongy enemies in Halo 2 (Brutes), Halo 3, Halo 4...I didn't like Halo Wars and Halo: ODST seemed alright but I just didn't play that one as much. I guess that could be my number 3 because I do like the non-linear story telling but it's been a long time since I've played it.
Oh I know. I love Reach. Great game. Just pointing out being the rookie who does everything for the entire time is the premise of all FPSs I've ever heard of.
Its not always so glaring. There is a difference between a game that makes you do everything, and a game that makes you do everything after explicitly telling you not to.
This was the main reason Battlefield: Bad Company ground my gears down to nubbins. I showed up as "the rookie," got the archetypal rookie talking down to from the commanding officer and squad mates, then immediately found myself LEADING said commanding officer and squad mates despite the CO making all the leadership decisions in the cut scenes.
I don't understand all the hate for Halo 4; I enjoyed the campaign a lot if not as much as every Halo prior to it with the exception of ODST. I really prefer to play Halos as a solo, badass Master Chief (though Reach's story was too good to deny) so that's where Halo 5 shit the bed for me before even considering the fact that you only play as MC for a QUARTER of the game...
EDIT: I just recognized a bitter irony in that last paragraph. I used to laugh at the Metal Gear fans who complained when one of the titles launched leading them to believe they were playing as Solid Snake and it ended up being Raiden. I recall saying to several people: "if the game is fun, then it shouldn't matter who you play as." I am eating Halo 5 crow and apologize to any enthusiasts of any game whose every desire is not met to their fullest expectation.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
