How?That's just the feeling I got. There's nothing that compares to the scarab encounter in Halo 3, for example. And there definitely could have been! It's still a great campaign though, and the vehicle sections are top notch, even in co-op. The space combat stuff was fun, but I actually preferred the other vehicle sections. But honestly, it's a terrific campaign. Halo 3 may be a little better, but it failed to take advantage of the epic story they could have told. This isn't anymore daring, but they handled everything very well. I can't say it's my favorite Halo campaign, but it's solidly executed, and I appreciated the story more than I thought I would. Knowing the outcome ultimately didn't make it any less awesome.

The kind who doesn't even play multiplayer? ;)I played the campaign with three other people, so it's hard to really compare. The amount of shields they're given on Legendary is insane though. The plasma pistol only sorta helps.

I did them with the shot gun drop down and it's on the floor

Shoot (close) *stunned*, melee, shoot.

Fullly charged plasma pistol takes their shield down, magnum or BR shots at the head, dead.

Bungie believes (wrong IMO) that smart AI = more health for enemies and less health for you.

http://aigamedev.com/open/reviews/halo-ai/

Questions:So how large are the biggest battles? I am hearing a lot about how NOT huge they are... and wtf no scarab battles? Are you kidding?!!

Sorry Megido but I'm crying with laughter here :D
You did say you wanted a challenge.

I know the bit you're on:

There's a sniper rifle up the roof at the back (dead soldier), hit Hunters in the orange spots (neck and back)

Get your eye in because it gets tougher :p

Just because someone runs a test doesn't = true. It may have been true of their sample, it may be true of their methodology and parameters that they were willing to test, and it may be a simple up/down, etc.

The reason I think they are wrong is that my years of playing--and I am not a casual gamer and I have a strong eye in terms of AI--is that developers often use "give more HP" as a way to make games harder--but that does NOT mean the AI is better. Not at all. Actually the reverse. It is the cop out way instead of making the AI more intelligent.

This is no different from, "Make the AI shooter better--it makes them seem smarter!"

I know a lot of gamers who equate hard w/ good AI, but they are totally different things.

Just because the dotes they use in sampling (and they absolutely focus test people who are NOT hardcore gamers) think hard=smart doesn't make it so. If anything they are re-inforcing a casual stereotype and is the #1 reason I HATE SP games. The AI frankly sucks in almost EVERY shooter. Now I understand these games cater to 10M users and amazing AI =! better game. But the direction was already set toward the, "Make them have more health, dish more damage, and this way they can see the AI do more stuff, giving the impression they are smarter." Halo 3 is already a bullet sponge game. They made Reach worse in MP with the AR in the Beta. I am sure this appeals to many but definately not my cup of tea. And people can like it ... just don't tell me more health makes for "smarter" AI. Good design, maybe, but not smarter AI.

They're pretty smart too. I've played around with Elite's a good deal. They actual pick up on simple kiting tactics better than most people on Xbox live do ;)I don't know, but they don't really stand out as being especially large.

I knew our baby was loud, but that loud? And how did they know my bed time :( (Seriously, no joke).