Rex Dark said:
I don't play it.
Mainly because you have to pay for an Xbox Live Gold account.
[sup]Note: This reason is very simmilar as the reason why I don't play WoW.[/sup]
If that weren't the case, I might play it.
Yes, because every fucking shooter must have an amazing online or it isn't worth it at all. Not to be a smart alek, but look at the responses thus far - story, gameplay, and campaign are part of the focus. The original three games are complete classics if played in proper order (which, I'll admit, is both a blessing and a curse in my opinion). The games are all worth it, at least try the original one at some point in time, and not for its multiplayer.
OP: Like a lot of people have said, its campaign and story are just cool. Not groundbreaking or powerful or amazing, but the campaigns and stories of the first three games are just an all around riot of fun. Throwing in a second player doubles it and completely changes the game, allowing you to perform completely different tactics in different situations.
Multiplayer is fun as well, but I'm not too sure I liked Reaches' multiplayer. I played a ton of Lone Wolf type games in the first games, but Reach seems to be obsessed with making Halo a team game. Which is fun, in its own right, but I liked Halo's multi because I didn't have to share my badassery with a team. That's fine in CoD and Battlefield and TF2, but Halo 3 made me feel like the baddest kid on the block and Reach doesn't seem to want to let me do that. And even when I do try to work as a team, most people seem to be so fucking incompetent that it all falls down to a matter of lucky shots and grenade throws rather than well coordinated attacks and skill.
However, I still prefer Halo's multi when friends are around.