{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/17/2011 8:02:13 AM
31
halo 3 VS. halo reach, which campaign is better?
alright guys no trollin around here but i think halo 3's campaign is a lot better than halo reach, but that is the only aspect of halo reach that i dont like, the campaign. it was alot more challenging in halo 3, i beat the campaign of halo reach in like 6 hours with my 8 year old brother on heroic. and im working on legendary right now. but it's just not that much of a challenge in halo reach as it was in halo 3. im gonna be glad to see what you guys think about it. Please respond, Peace.
-
In terms of stroy. Halo 3. This is mainly because this game was backed by a trilogy of story-telling and emotion to enhance the experience. Reach only had one game to build up things like character developments and memorable environments but to be honest, it did a fairly poor job within that aspect. The story was filled with cliched characters with little to no substance and story progression ended after Long Night of Solace. In terms of gameplay, I still have to give it to Halo 3. The scarab battles were, regardless, a fun aspect to that huge battle feel. I also personally felt that the level progression in Halo 3 was more consistent. In Reach, you go to a city and fight covies, then you go to another city and fight more covies, then, you go to a base and fight more covies, and all for what? A lack of a meaningful story just dumbed down some of the greater aspects of the campaign. The lack of major arena-boss style battles was also a dissapointment. Blow up a giant gun? Sure. Activate your own giant guns? Yay. The only amazing side of the story was when Jorge died (Sorry If I misspelled his name). And the connection to Dr. Halsy (Sorry If I misspelled her name as well) was great as well plus of course the general nods to the other Halos (Cortana, Captain Keyes, easter eggs). There was plenty of little great things that covered up some of the bigger mishaps but nothing that could give this campaign better then a C in my book. All of this is pure opinion of course.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NILLOC Do you ride a short bus ? All the missions in Halo 2 made sense and had clear objectives. They were fun and fairly straight forward. If you had that much trouble with the campaigns story then go to CoD[/quote] Fun...? Riding the freaking elevator with the flood all around was NOT fun. Neither was taking out those COMPLETELY random things which had shield faces and you had to wait until they got bored and found something shiny. Blundering around underground areas looking for a library was also stupid, as was lifting through the completely arbitrary Covenant bases which looked like they were designed by developers who were on acid. Some of the campaign was very nicely done, but over half of it to me was horribly confusing, pointless, and needlessly long or complicated until I had been through it several times. Not that the experience ever made the length of many of the stretches in that game tolerable.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NILLOC Halo 2[/quote] Although i disagree with your opinion sir i will rightly fight to the death for your right to say it. On topic: I prefer Reach's campaign.
-
I beat both on legendary the same number of days. (3 days)
-
As far as campaign goes Reach was a few steps in the right direction. I liked the lack of English speaking covenant. The aesthetic was good, the weapons did not look and sound like toys as in Halo 3. The Space bit was cool however I play too many space game to be impressed by that.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Zdann Halo 3, just because it didn't destroy 2 books worth of canon.[/quote] YES !
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] An average gamer [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] HundredJono Halo 2 beats both by a longshot.[/quote] HA! Nothing like wandering around random levels doing random things with a barely-there storyline tying it all together. "OH HAI! I em da cheef n nao ah em talkin to diz giant talkin feces which ken teleportz meh! YAAAAAAAAAAAAY!" Halo 2's storyline was utter garbage. More often than not you blundered around large, open maps until you got to the end with no real reason to ever do so. Anyway, on topic, I like Halo 3's campaign better, but there were three Halos to help set up its campaign. I still really like Reach's campaign, but seeing all you work towards in the first two Halos ended dramaticly was awesome. [/quote] Do you ride a short bus ? All the missions in Halo 2 made sense and had clear objectives. They were fun and fairly straight forward. If you had that much trouble with the campaigns story then go to CoD
-
Halo 2
-
Halo 3, just because it didn't destroy 2 books worth of canon.
-
I've replayed halo 3 campaign with a friend a few times in the past week and I've got to say, it's by far the best halo campaign ever. It is an all in one. Epic battles, vehicles, close quarters combat and everything in one campaign. It's simply the best. And to add to it is the epic music. Reach's is dark and has barely any good battles (if any). I still like reach's graphics better though and the amount of customisation.
-
Halo 3, no comparison. Master Chief is the best character compared to noble derp team.
-
Halo3 - Mission [b]The Ark[/b] Halo Reach - Mission [b]The Storm[/b]
-
I kind of liked Halo Reach better just because I found it a little more challenging and kind of like a breath of fresh air from the other games. Halo 3 on legendary was pretty easy except the checkpoints are miles away from each other. I want to complete the campaign not have to do the same tedious part over and over and over and over (yes I die alot in legendary). But yeah, they are both really fun, I just like reach's better.
-
Gameplay: Halo 3 Storyline: Reach
-
CE/ODST 'Nuff said.
-
i r d best campaign warrior ITT. Story line: H3 Gameplay value: Reach..now anyways. I got bored of hex editing Battle Rifles in three.
-
[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] HundredJono Halo 2 beats both by a longshot.[/quote] HA! Nothing like wandering around random levels doing random things with a barely-there storyline tying it all together. "OH HAI! I em da cheef n nao ah em talkin to diz giant talkin feces which ken teleportz meh! YAAAAAAAAAAAAY!" Halo 2's storyline was utter garbage. More often than not you blundered around large, open maps until you got to the end with no real reason to ever do so. Anyway, on topic, I like Halo 3's campaign better, but there were three Halos to help set up its campaign. I still really like Reach's campaign, but seeing all you work towards in the first two Halos ended dramaticly was awesome.
-
Halo 3
-
Both suck.
-
In terms of story line, I didn't really like either, though Reach was [i]slightly[/i] better. More science fiction and less science fantasy. Took me back to the days of the original Halo. In terms of gameplay? Halo 3 by a long shot.
-
Halo 3. Last mission never gets old
-
Reach was harder. I beat the Halo 3 campaign in two days. In Reach though, you have a bigger variety of enemies whereas in Halo 3 you just had the brutes and flood mostly. Oh gawd thats another thing that makes Reach better, NO FLOOD!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Halo 3 Hands down.
-
agreed but im just comparing halo 3 and reach no others
-
H3 for sure. Replaying any of Reach's campaign feels like a drag.
-
Halo 3's campaign challenging? Really I thought it was way easier than Reach's. Except for Cortana - My God that level sucked on Leg.
