Topic: Halo: MCC General Discussion

This is the place t talk ANYTHING Master Chief Collection!

So first comment 2 years later? Well, my first Halo game has been precisely Halo CE from the Master Chief Collection. I enjoyed it quite much so I got Halo 5 once I found a good deal, even though I still have to play 2, 3, 3 ODST and 4 first. I'll probably get Halo Reach too as it is backwards compatible on Xbox One.

Halo CE looks a lot like Metroid Prime, although Metroid Prime was released after it. Also, the visual improvements on the Xbox 360 version are stunning, the original does not look as good as Metroid Prime but the remaster is much nicer and not as dark as the Xbox version.

One thing I really like of Halo CE is that you eventually learn how each kind of enemy attacks and you have to combine different strategies in real time for a diverse group. Also, each of them is quite fun to fight against and once you get some better weapon or vehicle lying ahead, you can try different offensive patterns. No way to properly cover but it's an old game, anyway.

Next, Halo 2.

@VanillaLake Halo CE was the first game I played on the original Xbox and the reason I bought into the Xbox family, I liked it so much I have it on all 3 consoles and have completed it on Legendary on all 3. Playing it again on the One was a little shock on the difficulty level from what I remember and after playing 4 it seemed much harder. I hope you enjoy the other games as much as I have done over the years as its a great set of games and for me I think the standout for the whole series is Reach. CE was a ground breaking game for introducing many things we take for granted in the modern FPS and without it I think shooters would be very different today.
Oh, I think Halo 2 is the hardest of the whole series and the jump from Heroic to Legendary is massive on that!

@crippyd: There were few points when I thought the difficulty was too high (I played Normal from the beginning until the very end). The way chekpoints work, inexperienced players like myself can be stuck with no ammunition at all. I remember one point I did not have ammo but I had to enter an underground shrine (or something like that). I was successful because after five tries, I ran all the time to get what I needed to get inside and escape the place while dodging two dangerous enemies within. Without checkpoints, I think I would have given up because the game is quite balanced but there are some points that are not, and you can have a lot of trouble. Another challenging moment was to escape upwards with a vehicle before being hit, I usually tried to kill all enemies but at that point it was too risky. It took some attempts. I have heard a lot of people saying that Halo CE is the most difficult, but there's no way for me to know. The only time I hated the game was inside that giant maze where all walls and doors looked the same, with a lot of underground levels, with an ambiguous navigation point and, worst of all, without a map. The lack of map was the worst thing for me.

@VanillaLake The checkpoint system is good and can be a life saver (in game of course ). The escape from the Pillar of Autumn is a hard level but you just have to drive as fast as you can and then run at the end. I agree with your point on the maze like interior but they have updated it a little as there is now arrows on the floor to say which way you need to go. Halo is essentially a corridor shooter that feels a lot more open (as in there is only one way to go). If you need any help or want to play co op (I'm in the UK so keep that in mind) send me a message on Live

Sure! Thanks.

Halo 2 (and Knights of the Old Republic 2 which came out around the same time) were the reasons I bought my original Xbox, having grown tired of the GameCube. The leap from previous FPS games I'd played up until that point to Halo 2 was amazing. Took me a while to go back and get into the original Halo but once I did I found I preferred the story.
For me though, Halo 3 was the best. The number of hours me and two mates spent on Legendary campaign going for all the medals, and fooling around on multiplayer was unbelievable.
ODST, Reach and 4 were all awesome too.

@ChopperCampbell: Would you say Halo 5 disappointed you, even though it sure is a good game?

@VanillaLake: I wouldn't say disappointing. When 5 was good it was really good. The multiplayer in particular was excellent. The parts I wasn't keen on were the inclusion of the A.I. co-op characters, and the story felt a bit "to be continued...."

It may be one of the weaker entries in the series as a whole, but still very enjoyable.

@ChopperCampbell @VanillaLake it is definitely not the best entry in the Halo series (that would be Reach for me) but an enjoyable game all the same. It is most definitely a 'to be continued ' as its the start of a new trilogy.

@ChopperCampbell: @crippyd: Sounds good. I've already bought it, but I have to complete Master Chief Collection first (I have played CE this far).

Played the first and second halo on the original xbox and i loved the second one, then i played some halo 3 but never ended.
I bought a xbox one last year and of course get the master chief collection, and i love every game, my favorite was the 4 entry it feels so fresh, i need halo 5 now, maybe some day on the cheap haha.

My top
Halo 4
Halo 3
Halo 2
Halo CE.

@VanillaLake:
Prior to Halo 5 the series was my favorite entertainment property. Afterwards? I'm really re-thinking that. I liked 4 but it wasn't my favorite in the series and 5's campaign was a mess imo and seemed more like 343 trying to force things that never needed to be forced because they already existed in the Halo universe. I also hate what they did to one character in particular because the actions, at least imo, don't match what I always thought that character stood for. And the lack of Master Chief and his team p*ssed me right the hell off. I understand they want to introduce new characters but there are far, far better ways to do this than 5 did. Now, all that said. if all you care about in Halo is multiplayer, you should really enjoy the game.
As for how I'd rank the series (this is just based off the campaigns as I'm not really a multiplayer person)...
1. 3
2. Reach
3. ODST
4. Combat Evolved
5. 2
6. 4
7. 5

@Gamer83: Of course, as a newcomer I don't know much about that but, for a long-time fan like you, it's understandable that you don't agree with the new developer's ideas.

The videos included in Master Chief Collection (I don't know if they already existed before) are a great way of telling the story to beginners, I watched each associated video after playing each game chapter, and I could much better understand what was going on than just playing the game...

EDIT: ...but I've only played Halo CE this far.

@VanillaLake:
I've actually got no problem with a new developer, Gears of War 4 is high on my list of most-anticipated games and that has a new studio behind it but it's headed up by people who seem to have a clue and care about the series rather than pushing agendas. With Halo they took a series that actually ended well after 3 and now they're doing crazy things and there's little stuff that when added up really irks me but it opens up a whole can of worms whenever those things get mentioned so I won't go further into detail but I'm sure you can figure it out. Halo 4 and 5 are perfect examples of why sometimes it's best to let a series go when it's on top. When it's popular and a console-seller I know it's tough, but as a fan I'd rather see that than watch a new studio run the franchise into the ground, which is why I commend Sony if it actually will have the guts to leave Uncharted after 4, which wraps things up in the best way possible.

Thing with Halo is... As disappointed as I am in the new games, there's something about the game universe and expanded universe that has me hooked and I will always look forward to new stories. It's also not impossible 343 can redeem itself with Halo 6. Whenever it gets announced, I'll be interested for sure.

@Gamer83: Ubisoft is great at hyping new franchises. If Naughty Dog abandons Uncharted series and starts a new one, I'm sure it would be successful, as The Last of Us was, because they have a good reputation. Halo, as a bigger universe, might find a way forwards if 343 can find the right choices with the story.

@VanillaLake: I agree with @Gamer83 with regard to the Halo franchise and the direction that 343 have taken and done with the franchise. Again I won't go into detail here as people get very defensive and obnoxious if you don't have the same opinion and criticise a franchise that was a console seller and changed the console landscape.

I would agree hat 4 and 5 are the worst games. 4 is better than 5. I don't know that I would put ODST above 2 or even 1 for that matter either but I would put all of Bungies games far and above 343's. Maybe Halo 1 and 2's stories may not be as good nowadays because of the advancements in technology and the improvements made over time by the developers. Halo CE though will always have a special place in my gaming history and like Goldeneye, it may not have aged well.

I know Uncharted 4 marks the end of Drakes story with Uncharted and allows Naughty Dog to move on. It does however leave an opportunity for ND/Sony to return to the franchise in the future but if they choose not to, it ends well. What I think Sony does better, is that it allows developers creative freedom - the opportunity to move on to new projects. Uncharted 4 for example really benefits from some aspects found in the Last of Us. Guerilla Games could improve Killzone by certain aspects from Horizon:ZD if they return to that. I can't 'criticise' the Coalition because we haven't had Gears 4 and they do have continuity because of Rod Ferguson. If anything though, I would have preferred MS to set up a 'super' studio to make its franchises - those where the original development team have left. This could prevent the developers getting 'stale', getting locked in to a single franchise and a wider pool of ideas, talent etc - even the opportunity to create new IP's if the existing ones are, at that moment, exhausted and lacking good ideas - sometimes working on a new IP could help existing franchises afterwards - in the same way the Last of Us helped ND with Uncharted 4.

@Gamer83: @BAMozzy: According to what I've read, Bungie did not want to develop any more Halo games after Halo Reach, because they wanted to be the owners of the IPs that they create. Why really? Weren't they free when they developed the Halo games, or do they just want more money from their creations? Both would be fair, but I think the second is truer. Now they are the owners of their new Destiny franchise, which is published by Activision, but Destiny has not been as well received as Halo. Is it worth to give up a series the you created and love for more money, even though it means forcing Microsoft to choose another developer?

@VanillaLake: Its not always just about money. If you don't own the licence, even though its your own creation, the owners can dictate the direction, what they want etc. If you don't comply, they can take that licence and give it to another developer who will do what the owners want with it. If MS, for example, dictated to Bungie what games to make and what they expected from those games, it takes away the creative licence. Bungie had an Easter egg in ODST about Destiny - indicating that maybe they wanted to create a new universe but maybe MS were dictating that they were not free to make that game. By owning the licence, a developer can full creative control. If they are not tied to a publisher, they can arrange their own deals. Had Bungie owned 'Halo', they could in theory have made Halo for PS when they left. Licensing is why Rare can't release some of their 'best' games on Xbox - games like Diddy Kong racing (even though it has characters they created), Donkey Kong 64 etc.

The Beatles (for example) don't own some of their records - even though they wrote them. They have no say in what happens to that music. It could be used for advertising products that they don't endorse or wish to be associated with, recorded by other artists without their consent and get no money from its usage. Its not just the money but the fact that you have no say in something you create.

Respawn, former members of Infinity Ward, created Call of Duty but because they never owned the licence, had to allow Treyarch to make games. They now own Titanfall and so can release Titanfall 2 on any platform they choose. If they leave EA, they can make and release Titanfall with another publisher and not see someone (like Dice or Visceral) make 'Titanfall' games in the way they want.

Imagine if you created a very successful game, one that ended up changing the gaming landscape and well known, but have absolutely no say, cannot make another or worse, get pushed out and see someone else take over and move it in a 'different' direction, change the lore or vision. Lets not forget that Bungie created Cortana but have no say in its usage.

@BAMozzy: Obviously, that would be the perfect situation, but I was talking about this particular case. Once the company and the IP have been bought, is it worth deliberately abandoning it, knowing that Microsoft will have to hire somebody else and therefore the story of the Halo that you created might go any way? As far as I know, Microsoft let Bungie develop the Halo games the way Bungie wanted to.