The story might not be as good as Halo 3, but why does everyone think bad of it. Personally I love the multiplayer and there are no obvious flaws in the campaign (the ending could have been better). I just want to know why people think its bad.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] OrderedComa You may have enjoyed the novel more, but on its own it is entirely, completely, and totally laughable, Eric Nylund did not do a good job with depicting the actual battle at all. I read it before I ever played Reach and I thought it completely stupid, it did not make Halo great at all, it did nothing more but make me laugh my ass off and made a terribly unrealistic addition to the Halo story.[/quote] I really hate to call you out here but you can't make statements like than and then wonder why they get on you. It just seems that since you like the game and understand it easier you think it is "better". Everything you said about the book can be said about the game; such as it being completly stupid for the CSO to sit there for a month or more when that alone seemed to be more than enough to overrun the planet. It didn't make halo "great" with both factions "being at their height" yet we see no UNSC fleet, No SMACs and just a CSO sitting in space like a toad. It was terribly "unrealistic" for maggie to support the falling of a planet,sword blocking (which is canon),and the covenant just BSing in space for over a month for no reason. It's cool you like reach and all but you starting your halo love with halo 3 seems to be the reason for all of this. You were very late to the party and think the tie you spent was better than the first few hours.