Uh what? So you didn't like playing on the other side to see the story from a different point of view and somehow that makes the whole campaign horrible? Okay. Only thing REALLY horrible about Halo 2 was, as we all know, was the ending.
lol just gloss over anything else I wrote then.
Here's my own personal opinion on the Halo 2 campaign's shortcomings (in point form):
- The game barely ran on the hardware
- Didn't play as Master Chief for half the campign
- Part of the city environment that was teased at E3 wasn't even in the "finished" poduct
- Fought stupid apes with terrible AI most of the time, instead of Elites
- Scarab sections were underwhelming
- Entire game seemed rushed and incomplete, with sections like the elevator where you literally stand doing nothing (there was a story on fucking 60 minutes hyping this game for crying out loud, this was disappointing stuff)
- Level design makes Halo 4's straight paths seem labyrinthian by comparison
- Fought a bad version of The Flood and met their boss The Elder God from Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver
- Then fought more monkeys on long straight paths using their
awesome red plasma rifles
- Then the ending was a cliffhanger...
The fact that I didn't really want to see Keith David's side of the story was the least of my problems with the game.
Honestly, I don't understand how you're able to form sentences if you truly believe Halo 4 was "bad". Maybe a bad Halo game, but in no way a bad game. The hypebole is ridiculously infuriating.
Edit: and are people really attributing Halo 4's somewhat lackluster sales to the game's quality? Critically, it only did slightly worse than other Halo's (and better than ODST). CoD proves people generally don't give a shit about FPS review scores. If anything, it was probably series fatigue. For some reason, Halo got hit stronger than CoD.
Review scores have very little to do with quality, and series fatigue doesn't usually lead to the biggest day 1 sales in series history.