It seems like the most common things I see on these forums is people judging Halo 5 for not being like the glorified Halo 3 and Halo: Reach, which is something I really don’t understand. Halo 3’s campaign was good, yeah, but it was also massively lackluster. The last four missions were amazing, sure, but what about the first five? Over half the game was just irrelevant, story lacking Earth missions because they didn’t have enough of a story to fill an entire Halo game. Bungie said themselves that the whole Ark storyline was supposed to be in the end of Halo 2, so rather than a full Halo story, they just extended what was supposed to be one act of a Halo story into an entire game. And as for Reach, I’ll say that one was pretty good, but one massive complaint I see in these forums is criticizing Halo 5’s unoriginal and non-creative maps, but does anyone not remember that Reach didn’t have a SINGLE original map? All of its maps were just poorly taken straight out of the campaign. Other than that, their only “original maps” were forge ones, yet people also seem to complain about Halo 5 having forge maps. So it all just seems incredibly contradictory. I’m not saying Halo 5 is perfect, but Halo 3 and Reach certainly weren’t perfect either, and certainly don’t deserve to be idolized so much. I don’t know, maybe I’m just missing something. I’ve been with Halo since the beginning, and don’t get me wrong, it’s still my favorite series, but every installment seemed to be flawed just as much as Halo 5 is. Anyone care to explain or help me out?
People idolise Halo 3 and Reach because of nostalgia, there are other reasons, yes. But mainly nostalgia, I admit that I idolise Reach because it was the first halo game that I owned, but I still like halo 5.
Another reason could just be the fact that people want to hate on 343 because they’re not Bungie.
I dunno, just my 2 cents
> 2533274902059420;2:
> People idolise Halo 3 and Reach because of nostalgia, there are other reasons, yes. But mainly nostalgia, I admit that I idolise Reach because it was the first halo game that I owned, but I still like halo 5.
> Another reason could just be the fact that people want to hate on 343 because they’re not Bungie.
> I dunno, just my 2 cents
That could be it. I suppose that for me, since I’ve been a fan since before Halo even made it to the 360, I’ve been able to look at them all more fairly. But nostalgia does make a lot of sense. The whole 343 not being bungie could be a big contributor too. People don’t like change, and a developer change is a huge thing. Anyway, thanks for replying!
> 2533274903775647;1:
> All of its maps were just poorly taken straight out of the campaign.
I actually wish that this was done a lot more than it is. H5 has some great potential maps within the campaign. I have long felt every since the original Xbox and before that MP was suppose to at least to some degree feel like a extension of the campaign where you were your own character within a small part of the campaign.which could be achieved by using maps straight from the campaign.
I liked Reach’s campaign but I abhorred it’s multiplayer, and that’s after I dumped well over 200 hours into it. Halo 3 was the best of the initial trilogy in many regards and was the starting point for many of the things halo players expect in a Halo game (Forge, Infection, Griffball etc.).
For 1 halo 3 had fantastic MP maps, we got forge and theater for the first time, and we got halo into the realm of HD gaming for the first time. So when we observe H5 having lackluster maps, and a massive amount of content present in other halo titles but missing today we are at odds with why this is occurring. I genuinely believe the maps are less memorable in 5 due to the way movement mechanics alter and elongate the maps. Thats for another discussion, if you’d like we could go down that path.
> 2533274808669104;6:
> For 1 halo 3 had fantastic MP maps, we got forge and theater for the first time, and we got halo into the realm of HD gaming for the first time. So when we observe H5 having lackluster maps, and a massive amount of content present in other halo titles but missing today we are at odds with why this is occurring. I genuinely believe the maps are less memorable in 5 due to the way movement mechanics alter and elongate the maps. Thats for another discussion, if you’d like we could go down that path.
Actually this was just the answer I was looking for! I was simply wondering why people idolized them so much due to my perceptions, but now it makes more sense. I’m still not sure why people think the story in Halo 3 story was so much better, but the whole Halo 3 being a more complete game thing makes sense.
> 2533274903775647;7:
> > 2533274808669104;6:
> > For 1 halo 3 had fantastic MP maps, we got forge and theater for the first time, and we got halo into the realm of HD gaming for the first time. So when we observe H5 having lackluster maps, and a massive amount of content present in other halo titles but missing today we are at odds with why this is occurring. I genuinely believe the maps are less memorable in 5 due to the way movement mechanics alter and elongate the maps. Thats for another discussion, if you’d like we could go down that path.
>
>
> Actually this was just the answer I was looking for! I was simply wondering why people idolized them so much due to my perceptions, but now it makes more sense. I’m still not sure why people think the story in Halo 3 story was so much better, but the whole Halo 3 being a more complete game thing makes sense.
The story is ok, 7/10, we knew what was going to happen in the end- we were finishing the fight lol. It’s def more so about how halo 3 was a complete package with loads of content for the time it came out, and when we compare this to halo today we see a serious lacking of launch day content thrown to us later as free updates. Sure nostalgia plays a part and for good reason, it was a great product that retained players for many many years. So yea, there you go bud.
Halo 3 was way better
> 2533274810191683;5:
> I liked Reach’s campaign but I abhorred it’s multiplayer, and that’s after I dumped well over 200 hours into it. Halo 3 was the best of the initial trilogy in many regards and was the starting point for many of the things halo players expect in a Halo game (Forge, Infection, Griffball etc.).
Reaches campaign was pretty good and difficult
So what I seem to be getting from people is that Halo 3 felt like start of how much content should be in a Halo game, which is something Halo 5 didn’t live up to. And as for Reach, I heard a couple things regarding multiplayer, one for and one against, but maybe the more emotional campaign is what drives it towards idolization. Someone also mentioned it being good that its maps came from the campaign, which I can see as being admirable. I personally prefer original maps, but another comment on H3 having better maps also makes sense. I also got feedback against the two games, which is great as well. I was just looking for some thoughts form the community, so I thank you all for the replies!
> 2533274903775647;11:
> So what I seem to be getting from people is that Halo 3 felt like start of how much content should be in a Halo game, which is something Halo 5 didn’t live up to. And as for Reach, I heard a couple things regarding multiplayer, one for and one against, but maybe the more emotional campaign is what drives it towards idolization. Someone also mentioned it being good that its maps came from the campaign, which I can see as being admirable. I personally prefer original maps, but another comment on H3 having better maps also makes sense. I also got feedback against the two games, which is great as well. I was just looking for some thoughts form the community, so I thank you all for the replies!
Reach had solid content, its MP was left lacking likely due to the deviation from the golden triangle and an attempt to start a draw on the COD market. H4 took that failed idea and ran with it.
> 2533274903775647;1:
> It seems like the most common things I see on these forums is people judging Halo 5 for not being like the glorified Halo 3 and Halo: Reach, which is something I really don’t understand. Halo 3’s campaign was good, yeah, but it was also massively lackluster. The last four missions were amazing, sure, but what about the first five? Over half the game was just irrelevant, story lacking Earth missions because they didn’t have enough of a story to fill an entire Halo game. Bungie said themselves that the whole Ark storyline was supposed to be in the end of Halo 2, so rather than a full Halo story, they just extended what was supposed to be one act of a Halo story into an entire game. And as for Reach, I’ll say that one was pretty good, but one massive complaint I see in these forums is criticizing Halo 5’s unoriginal and non-creative maps, but does anyone not remember that Reach didn’t have a SINGLE original map? All of its maps were just poorly taken straight out of the campaign. Other than that, their only “original maps” were forge ones, yet people also seem to complain about Halo 5 having forge maps. So it all just seems incredibly contradictory. I’m not saying Halo 5 is perfect, but Halo 3 and Reach certainly weren’t perfect either, and certainly don’t deserve to be idolized so much. I don’t know, maybe I’m just missing something. I’ve been with Halo since the beginning, and don’t get me wrong, it’s still my favorite series, but every installment seemed to be flawed just as much as Halo 5 is. Anyone care to explain or help me out?
Halo 3 had the most fun coop campaign with huge vehicle battles and plenty of weapons for disposal. The first mission was fun, second was boring, but after that they were all high quality.
Don’t get me wrong, because I’m a big fan of Halo 5’s campaign and MP. But Halo 3 having lackluster missions? Three of Halo 5 missions are quite literally walking around, guns down, talking to a couple people. And while Reach’s maps weren’t the most original, there were a lot more of them than Halo 5 has, and more variation in map design. Again, I love Halo 5, but I understand where people are coming from in regards to the above topics.
> 2533274902059420;2:
> People idolise Halo 3 and Reach because of nostalgia, there are other reasons, yes. But mainly nostalgia, I admit that I idolise Reach because it was the first halo game that I owned, but I still like halo 5.
> Another reason could just be the fact that people want to hate on 343 because they’re not Bungie.
> I dunno, just my 2 cents
When the games released they were both very well received critically and commercially. They also both enjoyed (and Reach continues to enjoy) long lived and healthy communities.
Call it Nostalgia if it is the only way for you to make sense of it, but it wasn’t Nostalgia that gave them the good reviews, sales or communities. They actually were really enjoyable games that earned the praise they receive.
I’m starting to see where the community is coming from now. It seems like after a couple games, Bungie was really able to nail it with Halo 3. Maybe if we’re lucky, 343i can do the same with Halo 6
> 2533274903775647;16:
> I’m starting to see where the community is coming from now. It seems like after a couple games, Bungie was really able to nail it with Halo 3. Maybe if we’re lucky, 343i can do the same with Halo 6
Their track record has us left wanting, we can cross our fingers but our best bet is to continue to show why product x sold so well and was so well received for years past its release. Short term profits only go so far, they need consumer interest to keep the franchise profitable in the long run.
I’m a huge fan of the entire Halo saga and I’m always trying to be objective with every Halo game. I love Halo 5 Guardians Multiplayer, but its story is the worst of the entire saga. I hope they take another path since the beggining of Halo 6.
These games had more game types and better customisation at launch though
The reason why is because h6 has been in dev since 2011 so h5 didn’t get the spotlight for a while