CE solos both

3 by far was better.

Halo 4's story was better on a technical level, but it's not one I really connected with. And that made it difficult to appreciate what were probably supposed to be very emotional moments. As with a lot of people, I think there was a gap between how I envisioned the series turning out and how 343i shaped it, and that gap was too wide to bridge. Here is something I posted a while ago, edited around. [spoiler][b]Forerunners and The Didact:[/b] the ancient species has always occupied an interesting place in the Halo games, being happy to stand out of sight while still casting a shadow over the stories. Forerunners have been portrayed as transcendental life forms, at the very least, and even worshipped as gods. We've spent many years stumbling around their structures and fumbling around with their technology-- they even built the massive ring worlds for which the series is named. So, if you're ever going to actually show one in person, the expectations are pretty high. That still doesn't excuse how badly 343i seemed to handle the monumental reveal of a Forerunner in a Halo game, though. The game and its characters treat the Didact's entrance with nonchalance, as if the groundbreaking event isn't... well, just that. The Didact seemed familiar to everyone except me-- and I [i]was[/i] familiar with him. Halo 4 seemed to paint the Didact as a Bond villain, though that might come from watching too many Spike summer marathons. Being cheesy and cliched is fine when the story revels in it, but Halo 4 takes its antagonist more seriously than I could. His flowery diction, disfigurement, and gravity manipulation seemed not only unnecessary, but also counterproductive: they're all pretty human tropes for an ancient alien to have. The Didact's motivations surely deserved more than one or two hurried lines from a flashback, and the lack of depth only made him seem more like a throwaway megalomaniac from an action movie: "I have been wronged in some way that's not important, now I shall get my revenge by destroying humanity." I guess the Didact isn't the man (alien) that I thought he was. [b]Master Chief and Cortana:[/b] it seemed like there were a lot of missed opportunities here. One was the Chief's humanization. Given the character's previous game appearances, trying to develop him into a character capable of making an emotional connection seemed forced. Cortana had some powerful dialog and moments in the game, but Chief's attempts to reciprocate seemed half-hearted. This obviously has something to do with Chief being a "machine", but that key point was never elaborated. Their symbiotic relationship - the man made into machine and the machine made into man - was a perfect setup. When one of them started failing, the other would too, and both would be forced to confront their "other" sides. But that depth was missing, and instead it was substituted with some one-way dialog from a now-dead AI. The Spartan-IV's were also perfectly placed to explore this conflict: they could have been the "whole" warriors to Master Chief's "half", lethal Spartans who still retained their human side. It's just wasted potential; the Prologue promised too much.[/spoiler] And don't worry, I've already been chewed out by Chronarch for being dumd :) Edit: didn't realize I had already posted in this thread. Oh well.

Hands down, the answer is and can only be Halo 3......at least in terms of [i]Halo[/i] and the whole series. As a Halo game, Halo 3 has an infinitely superior story and is far better than Halo 4 could ever hope to be. One simple reason being that it's actually true to the Halo series and all the lore.

Halo 4 was dead on arrival. It doesn't even deserve to be compared to Halo 3.

Halo 5: Guardians. [spoiler]hue[/spoiler]

I'm gonna say Halo 3. It may not be story orientated but like a blockbuster movie, doesn't mean that it sucks and has no story. Halo 3s campaign blew me away it was of the most enjoyable things I've played in a long time. Halo 4s one wasn't built that well I think, although it did have some interesting character development in it, I'll give it that.

While 4 was a good game, it wasn't a good Halo game. Halo 3 is far superior, 4 just feels like CoD with Spartans. Multiplayer was crap like Reach's, but minus the fun stuff that made it playable. I would also like to point out the music only had two of the original Halo songs, and their appearances in the game lasted about 5 seconds each. Maybe I'm biased because of my memories from Halo 3, but I just don't like 4 as much as the other Halo games. Even Reach was better, and 4 has the same dang engine as it! Anyway, Halo 3 Campaign > Halo 4 Campaign, because I don't feel like writing a couple paragraphs on just why it was better.

Halo 3 has objectively the best story, everything else is just bad and filled with plot holes.

Halo 3 had better gameplay . Actually, I don't know. I haven't played either campaigns in a while.

Coming from someone who read the books, Halo 4's plot was deeply satisfying. But from an objective standpoint as solely a gamer, Halo 3 would have to win. Better soundtrack usually makes the better story. And Sergeant Johnson and the Arbiter are necessary.

At least Halo 3 was memorable. Master Chief 4 left no mark in my memory outside of the hurrderrportalnexus and the Promethians. Hell, even the part about the composer, and the climax of blah blah blah is hazy.