[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wilis_kid [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Mark V guy [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Wilis_kid [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] dirtmcgirt2004 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xMCxVSxARBITERx I honestly don´t think the campaign was that good in the original CE, more lame than good. But I am not saying that it´s bad. I think it´s very good but when compared to the other Halo games (H2 and H3) I think it is worse. I think it is far away from as good as Halo 2s campaign. But now with anniversary (and terminals) I think it might be as good as Halo 3s campaign. And for me H3s campaign is not that far away from H2s. And I agree. I think it´s the classic because it´s simply the first Halo.[/quote] This whole thread is crazy, especially your response. So CE's campaign is lame, but Anniversary's is so much better? And what exactly is the big difference here? They polished it up, that's it, right? Same levels, same weapons, same story. It's like all you care about is the superficial (how awesome the graphics are, how good the rag doll effects are, does this game have achievements?, etc.). Someone correct me if I'm wrong because I haven't played Anniversary, but what is the difference between it and CE's campaign that makes CE lame but not Anniversary. I don't know about you guys, but to me story and gameplay are the two most important factors in a video game, and nothing comes close to those two. I'm thinking that those who trash Halo CE and praise all the others after it, never played CE until after they played the others and can't seem to understand that games have technologically improved from 2001 to 2011.[/quote] There is no difference. The responses of some members of this forum astounds me. As you said and i can confirm, it's just Halo CE with updated graphics. The terminals weren't really all that interesting apart from 1 or 2 and the Keyes terminal. Skulls were a nice touch but they've been done before. To say it's as good as Halo 3's campaign because of these factors is just plain idiotic. In fact, I'd even go as far to say as Halo 3 had the weakest story of them all, it felt rushed and they borrowed alot of idea's from CE.[/quote] Halo CE had the weakest story IMO. Halo 2 had the best story of them all. I think the last 4 missions on Halo 2 were stunning, and the Covenant Civil War was portrayed very well Halo 3 may not have had the best story, but its all about the events of the previous games piecing together, and it's about the defeat of the Covenant ultimately. I'm really not that huge on ODSTs story. I mean, in all honesty the Battle for Earth seems a bit pointless. Master Chief is busy actually trying to save the Galaxy from the Halo Rings. If he fails, then everyone fails, and the galaxy will be obliterated. Therefore, there's no point in battling for earth. If anything, the entire UNSC forces should be with the Master Chief,not ensure that he succeeds in saving everyone[/quote] The fact your beginning to give more logical responses rather than spewing nonsense is a good start. Fair enough in your opinion but I disagree with you saying that Halo CE is garbage because it was the first etc but back to your quote, Halo 3 was weak because i felt the way Bungie portrayed the early Earth mission's wasn't that great. We had a massive build up and hype from Halo 2's ending but then it just suddenly stops and slows down. The end of the Covenant felt rushed but the epic battle towards the end of The Covenant was fairly well done. As for the UNSC battling for Chief to make sure he succeeds...he's fighting for Earth to stop the Covenant. The Halo Rings just made it a whole lot more difficult. By Halo 3, the Human fleet had finally given out and they only had a handful of ships and i'm assuming the 300 Super MAC's probably ruined most of Truth's fleet. They then as you know left to go to the Ark, with the Elites following with a few Human ships. The rest of the UNSC stayed back to defend Earth from the Flood?[/quote] Yeah I think the whole story of Halo was a little more grand than Bungie had originally planned, and proved more difficult to end in 3 games. In my personal opinion, I actually think each Halo has de-improved, probably more because of a 'been there done that' feel. The first Halo's campaign was untouchable when I played it back in the day and the game was a blast on splitscreen. No trash talking, t-bagging jerks over XBL,just friends having fun. You don't see that much anymore, now it's taking turns playing matches over XBL. Which brings me to Halo 2 being my second favorite because, of course, of multiplayer. Back when it was still a fresh online experience it was quite fun as well, and I really liked the maps in that game specifically. The exploration in that game was great too, both intentionally and unintentionally, cause super jumps and going outside the map were just as fun as what Bungie actually intended for you to do in that game. By the way, does anyone remember the sheer awesomeness that was getting out of Gemini. Definitely one of the most fun times I've had glitching out of a map Halo 3 was just more of the same on multiplayer and didn't keep me interested nearly as long. The story was rather sub-par IMO as well. Probably my least favorite Halo. I give Bungie kudos for the new direction they pushed with Reach, and while the game isn't groundbreaking I'm glad they did something different and I enjoy it on its own merits. And that's my take on the series. Never played Halo Wars and ODST just seemed like your average shooter to me, nothing special (except for the music, which was sublime and atmospheric and awesome!) [Edited on 12.30.2011 10:51 AM PST]