Bungie Has "A Lot To Learn" From Call Of Duty 4
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
For future reference [http://www.instantrimshot.com/]Malygris said:
Yeah same here but the reason I said that is pretty much because the whole industry is pretty much built on copycats, so I just hope they learn more than they copy - put their own spin on it instead of simply remaking the "nuke" scene in a Halo game, etc.stompy said:
-and I'm one of those
There's a lot more gametypes for Halo 3 than CoD, but the problem is not a whole lot of people really play anything outside of Slayer and CTF/Assault.
What I really liked about CoD was getting rewards even in defeat. It absorbs a lot of the sting of a losing streak when you get a promotion or achievement you've been working on.
And I've suggested since Halo 2 that playlist ranks should be hidden. Rank-whoring has eventually ruined every Halo clan I've been in. It could still be used for proper matching, but just keep it hidden to discourage exploiters and douches.
What I really liked about CoD was getting rewards even in defeat. It absorbs a lot of the sting of a losing streak when you get a promotion or achievement you've been working on.
And I've suggested since Halo 2 that playlist ranks should be hidden. Rank-whoring has eventually ruined every Halo clan I've been in. It could still be used for proper matching, but just keep it hidden to discourage exploiters and douches.
I had kind of hoped that we'd moved on from set pieces and scripted events. In fact, that's why I liked Halo, it had a few but a lot less than the COD games. It felt a lot more fluid.
I agree. The scripted moments in COD4 were great, and the AI was shite. The interview basically says "because Halos engine is more sophisticated, they don't have to rely on scripting to have incredible 'oh shit that was so cool how did that even happen' moments."
People need to realize that Halo is not the be all end all of games. Was it an ok game? Absolutely. Incredible? No. The thing that keeps people coming back to it is it's multiplayer aspect. The story really isn't anything spectacular by the end. I found myself caring a lot more for the characters in CoD4 than Halo 3.
Hardly. CoD4 multiplayer was piss-easy if you knew how to play it. Just camp to rack up the kills and then get even more kills with airstrikes and helicopter. I usually had a minimum 2:1 KD ratio whenever I played.XT said:
Of course, that really is irrelevant, because the multiplayer still sucks massively.
Could we stop arguing over which ones better?
Both games have their flaws.CoD4's main tactic comes down to camp-granade-airstrike tactics with Chernobyl map showing it in the worst possible way.There are only two groups fighting here - Snipers and Snipers Hunters.In fact,Hunters often loot the rifle shooting other Snipers until somebody comes along and kills him to take the rifle once again.It's almost like goddamn 2Fort.
Halo's main tactic comes down to rushing for Power Weapons and Nade-Shoot-Approach-Melee tactics,with Vehicles mixing things up every once in a while.Everybody runs around and it's completely normal to spawn in the back of something that can be described as an "enemy base" further adding to the cluster fuck effect.The shield is gift and a curse because while it gives you time to react and kill any possible campers,it also allows people to run away and wait in the corner for it to recharge.I guess it's better than the "First one to see the other wins" approach that CoD4 has.
Even though, I'm not sure what's the point in arguing because the BEST MULTIPLAYER GAME EVER, Team Fortress 2 is out there for only $20.
/endthread
Both games have their flaws.CoD4's main tactic comes down to camp-granade-airstrike tactics with Chernobyl map showing it in the worst possible way.There are only two groups fighting here - Snipers and Snipers Hunters.In fact,Hunters often loot the rifle shooting other Snipers until somebody comes along and kills him to take the rifle once again.It's almost like goddamn 2Fort.
Halo's main tactic comes down to rushing for Power Weapons and Nade-Shoot-Approach-Melee tactics,with Vehicles mixing things up every once in a while.Everybody runs around and it's completely normal to spawn in the back of something that can be described as an "enemy base" further adding to the cluster fuck effect.The shield is gift and a curse because while it gives you time to react and kill any possible campers,it also allows people to run away and wait in the corner for it to recharge.I guess it's better than the "First one to see the other wins" approach that CoD4 has.
Even though, I'm not sure what's the point in arguing because the BEST MULTIPLAYER GAME EVER, Team Fortress 2 is out there for only $20.
/endthread
I think that's pretty much the entire problem with the games industry summed up in a nutshell.bluemarsman post=7.67722.610431 said:
I can only hold out hope for TimeSplitters 4!
It feels fluid to leave your body to watch yourself do something that would be coolto actually do? That's why I liked Half-life. How many hours of gameplay and not a cutscene in sight.OurGloriousLeader post=7.67722.616057 said:
I haven't actually played COD4 but I will agree that Halo 3 could have been greatly improved.
In terms of multiplayer, one thing I think Halo could have done to improve would be to reduce the reliance that everyone seems to have on the sniper rifle. One or two snipers in a game, fine, it makes the game more interesting. This does not mean that it is cool or even nessercary to have everyone on a single team pull out scoped guns and take the highest point in the map, this is made even worse when you consider that most of Halo 3's maps are open, expansive outdoor arenas with little (if any) focus on mid-range or close combat (even at close range, some people are still reluctant to pull out anything other than a sniper rifle).
The game modes even link into this as well, team snipers (it's pretty obvious where I take offense) and Shotty Snipers (where most people seem to forget the 'shotty' part and treat it as a sniper match) are present but there isn't any close range only gametype besides Swords and Hammerzeit (both of which rarely occur since most people vito the match the second the word 'sword' appears).
A bit more variety in the map design and a more balanced range of weapons would have gone a long way.
In terms of multiplayer, one thing I think Halo could have done to improve would be to reduce the reliance that everyone seems to have on the sniper rifle. One or two snipers in a game, fine, it makes the game more interesting. This does not mean that it is cool or even nessercary to have everyone on a single team pull out scoped guns and take the highest point in the map, this is made even worse when you consider that most of Halo 3's maps are open, expansive outdoor arenas with little (if any) focus on mid-range or close combat (even at close range, some people are still reluctant to pull out anything other than a sniper rifle).
The game modes even link into this as well, team snipers (it's pretty obvious where I take offense) and Shotty Snipers (where most people seem to forget the 'shotty' part and treat it as a sniper match) are present but there isn't any close range only gametype besides Swords and Hammerzeit (both of which rarely occur since most people vito the match the second the word 'sword' appears).
A bit more variety in the map design and a more balanced range of weapons would have gone a long way.
i dunno.... i think i might play halo alot more if you could shoot someone in the head once ... and they die....