Was it really that bad?

Was it really that bad?

Yes.

I didn't hate it but
>that stupid QTE in the beginning
>the last boss being a fucking QTE
>that "explanation" as to how and why chief is as good as he is
There was a lot that was way too ambitious when it should have just dialed it down a bit and stuck to being Halo

I enjoyed it overall but there are some huge offenses in this game that spell doom later on. Such as trying to explain everything and stripping any sense of mystery. Then there is the absolutely nuts ending where you get a button prompt on screen to beat Didact. It doesn't get much more insulting than that.
Multi was fine, not even close to Reach levels but whatever

Too fucking linear not enough sandbox levels

Fpbp

Campaign was literally 4 hours on legendary

Is this really bad though?

>117
nice
Yes especially considering the scale of some of 1 and 3's levels. A lot of the levels in 4 funnel you down a specific play style, moreso than previous titles

Campaign was okay. I liked Lasky. Loved Chief telling the admiral to fuck off. Multiplayer was shit tier though

I pre-ordered it and got it day of release.
Yes, it's bad. It's not terrible, but it's not good either. The campaign is alright, and I did enjoy characters like Lasky (I had watched the pre-release series prior), but the multiplayer was dogshit, and the change to the art style is awful. You can tell that 343 was definitely looking more towards CoD instead of Halo.

I will admit that I had an emotional reaction to the ending at the time, but my feelings felt very betrayed with how Halo 5 turned to be. Oddly enough, I feel like more effort went into Halo 4's story than Halo 5's.

Campaign wise no, everything else wise yes

To me it felt like the campaign in Halo 4 was the big push, for Halo 5 it was clearly the multiplayer, with Halo 5's campaign it feels like it went through several reworks until we ended up with the pile of shit we got.

Having played more games of it through the MCC then I ever did when it launched, I can begrudgingly admit I hate it less these days. Either the bump to 1080/60 did it a world of good or it's just piss easy.

It just got boring and repetitive. It felt like you were just doing the same thing every mission. Which is kind of like every game desu but they really had no variety in how you completed the mission. Was cool at first tho

I think it's because Halo 4 felt like it had a semblance of the dev team actually trying to do something with it. Halo 5 feels like something completely different going in an entire new direction and it falls flat on its face.
>All that shit about Chief vs Locke before launch
>It's a storyline that goes absolutely nowhere aside from a poorly choreographed fight scene

I had a good time with it
then again i'm not some fag who nuts over halo 2 and 3 either. 4 was fine not amazing not horrible just good, but the same goes for 2 and 3. honestly I'd say the only great halo game was Halo CE.

Going by the 2013 trailer and some of the concept arts it feels like Halo 4's writer was working on Halo 5 but then he left and Brian Reed took over and decided that he wanted to continue his shitty Spartan Ops story and mostly ignore Halo 4's campaign and anything Master Chief.

yes

You need to play halo reach. Best in the series.

Fpbp

>Halo game
>has nothing to do with any Halo at all
despicable
that ending just pissed me off
my friend spoiled the ending for me, and i honestly didnt believe him
>no way, that's the dumbest shit i've heard
>cortana_ded.gif
>mfw

It's not bad. Campaign is fun to play through even if the story goes to shit. Excellent graphics, it even still blows me away how good it looks on 360. Best version of Cortana.

Multiplayer is damn near complete garbage. It's completely dead on Master Chief Collection, and I assume it's the same on 360. Bad maps. Loadout CoD bullshit. Not even Forge could save it.

Halo 4 looked like ass on the 360.
Still does too.

It really was that bad, but Extraction was the best objective mode added to the series since CTF and Oddball.