EA: Crysis 2 Will Be a "Halo Killer"

[Digikid]

Nothing can kill Halo. Not Even CLOSE.

Halo is THEE GAME!.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Yeah, alright. I'd wish EA and Crytek luck with that endeavor, but since their Crysis 2 marketing strategy has thus far been "these popular FPS suck, Crysis 2 will be better" I'll just sit here and be passively aggressive.

What is it with these forums and the unrelenting hatred of Halo?

Are you all just pretentious, or did I miss some sort of massive flaw?

More of the former I believe. People see how Halo is absurdly popular and almost universally loved but they themselves don't like Halo (perhaps it's from unrealistically high expectations but not always). Then some of these people will start vocalizing their hate with varying degrees of fervor because they either assume that people who disagree with them are idiots or feel the self-conscious need to spread their unpopular belief.

 

[DannibalG36]

What is it with these forums and the unrelenting hatred of Halo?

Are you all just pretentious, or did I miss some sort of massive flaw?

The first one probably. I'm puzzled if halo sucked so much why does everyone call their games HALO KILLERS. I know why because halo was actually epic and other developers can think of a original idea but to make a war game.

I usually let Halo defense slide, but this is bullshit. 90% of shooters involve a war, setting it in space does not make it original. Space Marines are lifted straight from aliens, even down to Sgt. Apone. The idea of the halos themselves is from Larry Niven's Ringworld books. The vehicles handle like shit, I could never understand why people said the Mako sucked but the Warthog was fun. The biggest flaw was the completely unthreatening enemies. I felt like I was shooting Teletubbies. When those extraterrestrial Care Bears started making cute little noises when I shot them, I realized this was either a parody or made for preteens. Oh, and what exactly is it that makes a game 'epic'? Is it the size of the space you're fighting in, or just the number of flashes happening at once? Because I don't think you really know what that word means.

My other gripe with Halo is that it paved the way for regenerating health, which opened the floodgates for every kind of developer hand-holding. I'm not saying all console games are inherently easier(Goldeneye was a *****) but after Halo, the majority of them were. Regenerating health is lazy developers catering to lazy players who can't be assed to backtrack for health or even remember where it was. Developers are afraid the ADHD generation will quit if they make their game too hard, and they'll tell their friends it sucks. So they make sure everybody can limp to the finish line in their own sad time. Games used to be actual antagonists, some of them going so far as to make them impossible to beat if you made the wrong choices. Those are games I can respect.

Now, if you're only talking about multiplayer, Halo is pretty good. Not the best, but still fun. The only gripe I have is the fucking plasma sword.

You can love Halo as much as you want, it won't bother me. But if you call me pretentious for hating it, I'll call you a retard for not playing STALKER instead.

Ahem. Regenerating health DID make games easier. I agree with you on that. But it also allows a tighter focus on good game mechanics and encourages a greater level of immersion. Witness, for example, Call of Duty (yes, the first one). It was a very cinematic and well-designed game, but epitomizes what I hate about non-recharging health. A simple defense mission could get frustrating simply because a swarm of incoming enemies would take away 95% of your health, following which a random shot would then kill you while you made a mad dash for a stash of health kits. Eventually, the game devolved into a hunt for health packs (especially in the Stalingrad levels), which frustrated me to no end. Yes, limited health forces you to play more skillfully, but you have less fun and feel less like a conquering badass. Bottom Line: go ahead and be snooty, but regenerating health just makes a game more immersive and engaging.

BTW, S.T.A.L.K.E.R is a different animal than Halo entirely, although I personally think it's the best 'realistic' FPS to come out in the past five years. Your inherent vulnerability is part of the experience of being caught in the entrancingly beautiful and deadly Zone. Your susceptibility merely enhances the overall atmosphere of despair and embitters you in your grim fight for survival as you desperately fight off the Zone's horrors. I don't normally wax poetic when describing a game, but S.T.A.L.K.E.R certainly deserves every ounce of praise I can give it. However, I'm not sure the non-PC gamers would appreciate it as much as you or I or the rest of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R fans would.

 

[SpecklePattern]

Well that kind of comments from the game maker is like someone would be running around the olympic stadium and shouting "I will pwn you all! I will pwn you all!" before attending the marathon. Like someone above said: unprofessional. (And basicly is not selling the game to me at all. Mostly opposite actually.)

 

[mikecoulter]

It's not really worth comparing something worth talking about and something that's been bland for the last few instalments.

 

[James Cassidy]

You know how many games over the years claimed to be "Halo Killers?" You know how many succeeded? If you answer "none" on the second question, you are correct.

There was a time when EVERY game developer wanted to beat Halo and make a Halo killer and every one of them failed miserable.

Remember Brute Force? That was said to be the "Halo Killer," but like always failed horribly.

Both Halo and Call of Duty are the big leagues and the only two series to actually compete with each other and drawn to a stand still.

Everything else could try to compete, but soon they get knocked down. That's why the games that don't even try to fight CoD or Halo and just be themselves do better than the ones who do.

So Crysis? You just dug your own grave and you haven't even been released yet.

 

[Section Crow]

hmm...
hmm...

well i can't think of anything else to say that's been said.
alls I'm going to say is that I'll try to play both games and compare them myself

not sales, not how awesome the graphics are, not how good the combat is but how much fun I have with each.

oh and 1 more thing it is my CALL OF DUTY to play and compare these games for it will give me a HALO or put me in CRYSIS

 

[James Cassidy]

I usually let Halo defense slide, but this is bullshit. 90% of shooters involve a war, setting it in space does not make it original. Space Marines are lifted straight from aliens, even down to Sgt. Apone. The idea of the halos themselves is from Larry Niven's Ringworld books. The vehicles handle like shit, I could never understand why people said the Mako sucked but the Warthog was fun. The biggest flaw was the completely unthreatening enemies. I felt like I was shooting Teletubbies. When those extraterrestrial Care Bears started making cute little noises when I shot them, I realized this was either a parody or made for preteens. Oh, and what exactly is it that makes a game 'epic'? Is it the size of the space you're fighting in, or just the number of flashes happening at once? Because I don't think you really know what that word means.

My other gripe with Halo is that it paved the way for regenerating health, which opened the floodgates for every kind of developer hand-holding. I'm not saying all console games are inherently easier(Goldeneye was a *****) but after Halo, the majority of them were. Regenerating health is lazy developers catering to lazy players who can't be assed to backtrack for health or even remember where it was. Developers are afraid the ADHD generation will quit if they make their game too hard, and they'll tell their friends it sucks. So they make sure everybody can limp to the finish line in their own sad time. Games used to be actual antagonists, some of them going so far as to make them impossible to beat if you made the wrong choices. Those are games I can respect.

Right let us remind ourselves how many FPS uses a real war as their story base. Some even historical fiction. Let us reminds ourselves that fighting Nazis/Russians has been done to death. Let us remember that real life guns have changed very little between each rendition.

Modern Warefare 2 uses regen health, but some people think this is the best game ever.

I also believe that medkits are a pain. Especially the ones I cannot carry with me.

If you want realism then why not make a game where when you get shot ONCE you die.

Ever play a game called "Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth?" Now THAT was a FPS that was so much immersed it was crazy.

 

[Busdriver580]

so this is what, like the 12th halo killer?

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I'll stick with War for Cybertron thanks, at least it offers something a bit different.

 

[Phenakist]

"OMG WHY IS THERE A 2 AFTER IT'S NAME?! THERE WASN'T A FIRST LOLOLOLOL"

You know that's what's going to happen.

If I ever make a game series I'm going to start it at number 3 and act like nothing is weird about that.

That was referring to the fact none of them will actually know there's a first Crysis, I guarantee you there will be arguments fought and won about there being a first Crysis or not.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

So they aim to dethrone a king that is going to have it's funeral soon?
I don't doubt that Crysis 2 will be good, but that makes it sound like they are desperate to defeat a franchise that is already done.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

Meh for me Halo 2 was the Halo killer....killed any interest I had in the series.

Yea, I loved Halo 1 but hated the second game. What did you hate Halo 2 anyway?

No weapon in halo 2 behaved like the halo 1 pistol. Destructible vehicles meant they were basically useless if you also had rockets on the map. No falling damage gave people who knew the map a large advantage and made positioning less important. No static health bar meant you couldn't pick at people and hide, you had to kill them in one burst which was never my style. Swords made the game way less strategic and more twitchy.

However I did like the driving and carjacking mechanics. But again entering a vehicle on any map that had rockets was suicide.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

The people behind Crysis 2 seem to be pretty cocky. But I guess they've got a reason... I mean, I can't even mention the game without mentioning the amazing graphics... they're just so beautiful...

 

[PwnSt0nes]

a good point sir

If any game ends up being a "-killer", no one tends to remember. Does anyone remember Duke Nukem 3D or Half-Life as "the Doom-killer?" For RTS, what game was the "Warcraft II-killer"? Being a game-killer is all about hype...if the game succeeds, no one cares if it "killed" another game.

a good point sir.

 

[Insomniaku]

funny, I thought Halo was long since dead, not to be a complete troll or anything but it's so freaking basic, hard to believe people would play it passed the two year mark

 

[ucciolord1]

He probably used Halo because it also happens to be a sci-fi shooter. While CoD might be the most popular FPS (much to my annoyance), Halo is still the premier Space-Marines V.S Aliens thing.