- Sep 1, 2010
- 2,574
First Halo 4 gameplay
- Thread starter Jay
- Start date
- Nov 10, 2003
- 5,129
- Moderator
- #3
I will never play this.
- Nov 10, 2003
- 8,897
- Admin
- #7
- Sep 1, 2010
- 2,574
- Thread starter
- #8
- Nov 10, 2003
- 5,129
- Sep 1, 2010
- 2,574
- Thread starter
- #11
Oobs
meh...
- Dec 16, 2010
- 1,518
whats wrong with it
scrappy
Floormaster
- Mar 9, 2011
- 610
its kind of like too little too late. we've been MC for three games and now they want to develop his character through a game 11 years after they introduced him? fall of reach did an incredible job and they ignored it then so im supposed to be happy they are doing it now? halo multiplayer is getting so stale. same shit different game. they're talking about "we want to make the HUD look as real as possible" get the fuck out of here. "we're thinking of asking why red spartans are fighting blue spartans across the galaxy and including it in the canon. oh by the way THEY ARE THE NEW UPGRADED SPARTAN 4!" i went to halo fest at pax last year. this whole 343 thing is a big jerk off by microsoft to rake in the dough. they are going to keep making halo games until the end of days. its a big joke.
i admit...i was curious when i saw the trailer because i want to see how they are going to take the story...but thats about it. after seeing this its just a fireworks show for the fanboys and its a real turn off.
Bronson
I'll need a badge.
- Nov 10, 2003
- 3,019
While I think adding story to multiplayer is unnecessary, and certainly shouldn't be a selling point, I don't necessarily see it as a turn-off. It's inconsequential. Multiplayer may be stale to you, but I think that has to do with Bungie trying too hard on new features (dual wielding, equipment/armor abilities, loadouts, reticle bloom) and not spending enough time on the more important aspects of a multiplayer game like weapon balance and map design. Is 343 going to do the same thing? Maybe. I don't like that the battle rifle is back. The DMR (or a similar weapon) would have been perfect.
As far as campaign goes, I don't really feel like it's been necessary to present the Master Chief's backstory in a game yet. The dynamic of a faceless hero against an entire army with more advanced weaponry was great. Like they said, his story is available to those that want it in the books (particularly "The Fall of Reach" and "First Strike"), but it wasn't vital to the games. Now that the Covenant is (presumably) defeated, though, they have to go somewhere. I guess I'll reserve judgment until I hear more about it or actually play it, but three of the four campaigns have been very good. I hope this one lives up to them.
As far as campaign goes, I don't really feel like it's been necessary to present the Master Chief's backstory in a game yet. The dynamic of a faceless hero against an entire army with more advanced weaponry was great. Like they said, his story is available to those that want it in the books (particularly "The Fall of Reach" and "First Strike"), but it wasn't vital to the games. Now that the Covenant is (presumably) defeated, though, they have to go somewhere. I guess I'll reserve judgment until I hear more about it or actually play it, but three of the four campaigns have been very good. I hope this one lives up to them.
scrappy
Floormaster
- Mar 9, 2011
- 610
its not that they are fitting the MP into the canon...i happen to like when games do that. AC did it perfectly. but its what it represents. halo has this whole weird feel and aura around it now that i cant stand. it embodies everything i hate about not just gaming but media in general. i went to halo fest at pax last year and it was so stupid. halo was perfect with fall of reach and halo 1. in 2001 i was the biggest halo fanboy on the planet. but ever since halo2 ive just been asking myself how could something that was so amazing gone so wrong. everything from the direction of the story to the halo movie fiasco. to me the series has become a giant joke. i was hoping they would tone it down a little bit for this next generation of games...but this vidoc was just more of the same
Bronson
I'll need a badge.
- Nov 10, 2003
- 3,019
If you're trying to make the point that Halo 1 was the pinnacle of the series, you're preaching to the choir. Relative to what it should have been, Halo 2 was a complete disaster. But taken separately from its predecessor, it was still a great multiplayer experience, and the last two have been pretty good as well, in my opinion. The story-telling in Halo 3 was good, and I thought Reach's campaign was excellent.
scrappy
Floormaster
- Mar 9, 2011
- 610
i felt odst was my second fav behind halo1. but i think im a minority in that. it just had that smaller more personal feel to the characters and the mission like i did with 1. and the detective like noir feel to it was interesting. like you said 2 was a fiasco. 3 i felt they were just going through the motions. there was nothing to it. their response to the negative criticism on arbiter was just to make him background which was stupid. the gravemind was a completely different character. it followed the same format of "oh we are half way thru the game. bring on the flood." i just didnt feel the epicness it was supposed to have. and while reach was extremely beautiful visually, it never delivered that "this is the battle of reach" feel to it that i wanted to see brought to life from the book. they had it in the trailer which was cool, but never in the game. and i know the trailer is a prologue, but they never tell you. they imply that its reach which was a dumbass thing to do. also the way they fucked with the canon to explain the spartanIIIs of the squad and the way they look and all...just seemed so forced for the sake of being cool rather than reasonable and compelling storytelling. wasnt that happy with it.
ive read all the comics and almost all the books too. plus i own legends. halo is the only gaming franchise i know where the expanded universe is better than the games.
ive read all the comics and almost all the books too. plus i own legends. halo is the only gaming franchise i know where the expanded universe is better than the games.
Last edited:
- Nov 10, 2003
- 5,129
- Moderator
- #18
- Jan 15, 2011
- 2,157
[video=youtube;FopyRHHlt3M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M[/video]
Bronson
I'll need a badge.
- Nov 10, 2003
- 3,019
Chris: Way to take the first sentence out, and therefore ruin the context of the phrase. I'm right though. Halo 2 should have built on what made Halo 1 great, but instead, they tore down everything and started almost completely from scratch. They focused so much on dual-wielding being the centerpiece of the multiplayer experience (which was a terrible idea in the first place) that they came very close to ruining the franchise. The 1.1 patch saved it for the most part and made multiplayer a much better experience. Still, though, the game is so different from Halo 1. It's really unfortunate.
Scrappy: I get what you're saying. I felt like Reach did a fine job at telling the story. Not as good as the book, but good nonetheless. Story aside, the campaign itself had quality gameplay. Personally, I didn't need the story. I already knew it. That part was secondary for me. I just wanted a good playing experience, and I got it. Never played ODST. Didn't interest me. 3's campaign was probably based in nostalgia for me, because it was so reminiscent of Halo 1's.
Scrappy: I get what you're saying. I felt like Reach did a fine job at telling the story. Not as good as the book, but good nonetheless. Story aside, the campaign itself had quality gameplay. Personally, I didn't need the story. I already knew it. That part was secondary for me. I just wanted a good playing experience, and I got it. Never played ODST. Didn't interest me. 3's campaign was probably based in nostalgia for me, because it was so reminiscent of Halo 1's.