The ugly truth about Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary

Take a gander -

Fix your link pls

I have read that article, and I have concluded that the writer doesn’t entirely know what they’re talking about. :stuck_out_tongue:

Campaign is exactly the same, yes. No multiplayer, well I’ll let them have that point. Terminals? It’s not a bad thing. If they really don’t like them, they can just overlook them.

What a stupid article. First and foremost: Why are you so against the addition of terminals? You hardly make an argument against it. It’s a nice way to expand the halo story without affecting the classic experience.

Second: Halo CE already has an active multiplayer community in the form of Halo PC. It’s a great game, and if people want their classic Halo experience, it already exists. When 343 decided to port the maps to Reach, they did so after a lot of consideration. Remaking the multiplayer in addition to the campaign would split the community, unnecessarily, and would likely disappoint. Even if the core combat was unchanged and graphics just updated, it would never be the classic experience we remember from 2001.

Finally, some time before CEA, around August if I remember, 343 is finally releasing a TU for Halo Reach. According to what’s been said, it will allow for a more classic experience come November and the release of Halo Anniversary.

This writer just expressed what we already know: the choice to exclude classic multiplayer from Halo: Anniversary was a bad choice. However, the campaign is not as worthless as they seem to think, and getting classic maps in Reach is better than nothing for people who “tolerate” Reach.

> This writer just expressed what we already know: the choice to exclude classic multiplayer from Halo: Anniversary was a bad choice. However, the campaign is not as worthless as they seem to think, and getting classic maps in Reach is better than nothing for people who “tolerate” Reach.

It was hardly a bad choice. Halo CE alreadly has an active multiplayer community in Halo PC. You want your classic Halo experience online? Halo PC is only $20.

a few things about the article.

  1. library on CE was and still is my favorite campaign level from any halo game, ever; why all the hate?

  2. adding terminals or skulls to the campaign is fine; if you don’t like them, don’t find them.

  3. i agree 100% that the failure to add CE multiplayer into CEA is just that; a failure. i, personally, will not be buying this game when it launches. i can wait until around christmas (a full month after launch) to pick it up used for around $20 (or less, let’s be serious).

yes, that’s right, i’ll buy it used. and zero of my money will go to support 343 or this poor decision to make a half–Yoinked!- remake of CE. and if anyone else TRULY doesn’t like the decision to drop multiplayer from CEA they should do the same. the only real way to get any attention is with your wallet. buy used, save loads of money, and prove that they really did make a mistake.

That guy really irratated me in ever single paragraph I was reading. Halo CEA was made out of pure passion. Not just some stupid remake to make money. I left my thoughts in a comment. How annoying was that…

Personally, I think that that article has it backwards.

If you want to play Halo: Combat Evolved with the exact same physics engine, game engine, '90s-quality voice-acting, etc… Then just play the original Halo: Combat Evolved, or play Halo PC.

Anniversary isn’t a remake, it’s a port with Reach graphics bolted onto it. When I heard they were making a remake, I was hoping for… Well, for an actual remake. Not a fossil wearing designer clothes. :\

EDIT: Inb4flames.

> Personally, I think that that article has it backwards.
>
> If you want to play Halo: Combat Evolved with the exact same physics engine, game engine, '90s-quality voice-acting, etc… Then just play the original Halo: Combat Evolved, or play Halo PC.
>
> Anniversary isn’t a remake, it’s a port with Reach graphics bolted onto it. When I heard they were making a remake, I was hoping for… Well, for an actual remake. Not a fossil wearing designer clothes. :
>
> EDIT: Inb4flames.

Well, actually, any Reach graphics in the trailer were just place holders for the sake of the trailer.

But I agree with this otherwise. If people want the classic Halo experience, play the original Halo or Halo PC. Hell, with Custom Edition, you can play Halo with better graphics than the 360 is capable of.

> > This writer just expressed what we already know: the choice to exclude classic multiplayer from Halo: Anniversary was a bad choice. However, the campaign is not as worthless as they seem to think, and getting classic maps in Reach is better than nothing for people who “tolerate” Reach.
>
> It was hardly a bad choice. Halo CE alreadly has an active multiplayer community in Halo PC. You want your classic Halo experience online? Halo PC is only $20.

halo PC is halo CE + massive lag.

your argument is invalid.

I disagree with this whole article

  1. The campaign looks amazing and also the Library is hard to navigate through but the level itself is great a real terrifier if you ask me!

  2. Not having CE multiplayer is the right decision. Reach needs a boost, it needs better maps, its needs better gameplay, and it needs new mechanics all which will be given to it in the months to come. This will bring Halo fans back from Black ops if you ask me, and also adding CE multiplayer would destroy a Halo title within a year. That is not how it works!

  3. I did enjoy the days when you had the 3sk pistol, but that is the past and having a weapon like that over live would be awful. Its one thing to get killed by it with your friend sitting right next to you then a random over Live destroy you with it. It wouldn’t be the same and it wouldn’t be fun.

(Plus with the TU we will be getting a much more classic feel to these maps maybe not perfect but a much closer feel)

(Also I believe a few of the maps will be Halo 2)

> > > This writer just expressed what we already know: the choice to exclude classic multiplayer from Halo: Anniversary was a bad choice. However, the campaign is not as worthless as they seem to think, and getting classic maps in Reach is better than nothing for people who “tolerate” Reach.
> >
> > It was hardly a bad choice. Halo CE alreadly has an active multiplayer community in Halo PC. You want your classic Halo experience online? Halo PC is only $20.
>
> halo PC is halo CE + massive lag.
>
> your argument is invalid.

I don’t know of this massive lag of which you speak.

Why should we care about an article that is written by someone who doesn’t completely what he’s talking about? To my understanding a normal Halo map pack costs 10$. There are two of those in the remake plus one other map. Then there is the Halo CE with updated graphics and added features, which you could easily charge at least 20$. Now that we have those it makes exactly 20$+2*10$+3$=43$. It may not sound much, but we are getting one map for free.

Then there is the multiplayer part. The writer simply doesn’t know why the game doesn’t have multiplayer. They would have added the multiplayer if they could get it work fine, but they can’t.

> Why should we care about an article that is written by someone who doesn’t completely what he’s talking about? To my understanding a normal Halo map pack costs 10$. There are two of those in the remake plus one other map. Then there is the Halo CE with updated graphics and added features, which you could easily charge at least 20$. Now that we have those it makes exactly 20$+2*10$+3$=43$. It may not sound much, but we are getting one map for free.
>
> Then there is the multiplayer part. The writer simply doesn’t know why the game doesn’t have multiplayer. They would have added the multiplayer if they could get it work fine, but they can’t.

Actually, they could have gotten it to work, but they decided not to. Reach already has an active multiplayer community, and to split it would be stupid (especially with Halo 4 coming out next year, which will likely feature multiplayer, too).

> > Why should we care about an article that is written by someone who doesn’t completely what he’s talking about? To my understanding a normal Halo map pack costs 10$. There are two of those in the remake plus one other map. Then there is the Halo CE with updated graphics and added features, which you could easily charge at least 20$. Now that we have those it makes exactly 20$+2*10$+3$=43$. It may not sound much, but we are getting one map for free.
> >
> > Then there is the multiplayer part. The writer simply doesn’t know why the game doesn’t have multiplayer. They would have added the multiplayer if they could get it work fine, but they can’t.
>
> Actually, they could have gotten it to work, but they decided not to. Reach already has an active multiplayer community, and to split it would be stupid (especially with Halo 4 coming out next year, which will likely feature multiplayer, too).

Oh yes, they could have got it to work. It couldn’t be called Halo CE multiplayer anymore because adding netcode would have required unwanted changes. In the end, the multiplayer wouldn’t have been anything we remember it to be. Otherwise it could be made to work without netcode, but lag would make the game unplayable on longer distances, and I don’t mean in-game distances, but distances in real world.

> People want to play online multiplayer Combat Evolved-style:

You can’t have your tight -Yoink- LAN and eat it over XBL too.

Whoever wrote the article obviously doesn’t understand why CE multiplayer online would be a disaster.

Vehicles that can’t be boarded

A pistol that owns everything else

Bullet magnetism

Melee lunge

All the other additions in Halo 2 that were added for networking purposes

It wouldn’t be the same game.

I don’t care about all that stuff, as long as I can play co-op with my friends over Xbox LIVE I’m happy.