I remember playing the campaigns on the MCC to get the cutscenes, and it was strange because even with the old graphics, it just felt wrong. I initially chalked it up to the games just not aging well, and games with more weight to the enemies and character control being superior.

But playing the original versions, I felt no such lack. They were perfect. It wasn't the frame rate, because I prefer 60fps universally. The Naughty Dog games that get PS4 versions (Uncharted, Last of Us) are all way better in 60fps. That's not it.

What could be different? The only thing that's different besides frame rate is the code base (Halo PC and Halo 2 Vista as a base), widescreen rendering, and a new controller. Are there other differences?

I was also just struck at how undirected Halo was. I don't mean that in a bad way. It just had a bunch of encounters, and you could kind of just do whatever you wanted and approach them in a number of ways. It didn't hold your hand that much. It felt like a series of challenges rather than a series of set pieces if that makes sense. Some of the more modern Halo games (Halo 4) I think tried very hard to make a series of set pieces that connect to form the story, and as a result you get this kind of rigid experience rather than a rich one.

Halo 5 seems to be very story driven, so I hope that they don't go too far in Halo 4's direction with regards to the actual combat. I've always felt that scripted sequences in engine while the player is still in control are a wrong step, with very few exceptions. Almost all of the scripted events in Halo (Life pods launching / descending, foe hammer's death, etc) were done correctly because they didn't co-opt the game or otherwise drive things.

Got through Reach, 1, and 2 yesterday. 3, ODST, and 4 next weekend.