Halo 4 criticized for not having iron sights...wut?

[Lunar Templar]

snip

don't bother Kor.

one smells like a CoD fan boy that hasn't looked in the mirror ... well, both actually but the one more then the other, and both are just as misinformed as the 'reviewer'.

and you know how i feel about the Halo games

Yeah, I sort of bit the bullet there instead of dodged it. :/ Well I can only now wait to see how they respond, I probably will try not to respond if it's blatant flame bait.

the whole review is flame bait, the biggest redflag was calling MC 'silent'. i've barely got 5 hours in total in all the Halo games combined and even i know the dood talks. it just bitching about Halo still being Halo and not a shallow, throw a way hand hold a thon that the 'modern military shooters' have become.

hell, I'd rather play a Halo game then CoD, but you know that to :3

 

[Mikeyfell]

Huh?
Lack of Iron Sites and Cover is literally the only reason I think Halo deserves a place in the gaming universe.

343 has tried to rip off CoD in every other way already. I feel sorry for Halo 5. or Modern Warfare 4 or what ever they're going to call it.

Please do give examples of how it's like CoD, aside from: IT HAZ PERKS! Because Call of Duty invented Loadouts, Perks, and so on. Am I right? No other games ever had them. In fact let's just say Call of Duty invented shooters while we're at it.

:/

Okay...
Let me give this a shot.
Ahem*
IT HAZ PERKS! AND LOADOUTS! AND KILLSTREAKS! AND SO ON!
Halo never had that shit, which is why it was fun.

I came in to Halo Reach Multyplayer months late and still managed to hold my own and have fun, and that is because the players who were better than me didn't also have better stuff.
I appreciated that Halo was still balanced in the modern era of unbalanced gameplay if more fun for the people who bought new on day 1 and fuck everybody else. Now Halo's adopting the same bullshit model to some degree.

I thought I made it clear in my comment that I actually like playing the Halo games and that them being more like CoD is a bad thing, So I don't know where the last part of your comment came from. I mean out of your ass obviously, but I don't see the point. CoD invented shooters? Huh? I know you're trying to make me sound dumb by putting words in my mouth but nothing in my comment even suggested that I liked CoD.

 

[Eilanis]

Honestly, who expects iron sights in a sci-fi shooter? Is there a lack of duck tape and laser pointers? Have Red Dot Sights gone out of style? Assuming the author is talking about ADS (Aim Down Sights), he may or may not have a point.

Now, to be fair, I've played more Call of Duty singleplayer and multiplayer than I have Halo, but never bothered with Modern Warfare 3 and have no interest in Black Ops 2 - but that's more a PC Gamer vs Console Gamer thing. I might as well admit my experience than have it be the noose. For a Console Shooter, I don't think there's a terrible need for ADS. This Penny Arcade post (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2011/1/24/) where Tycho wrote to a developer (I think) of Monday Night Combat on a transition from PC to Console and it is an interesting read. From my experience, since aiming is "easier" using Keyboard/Mouse, ADS adds a good dynamic, where it forces you to choose in a moment whether to keep advancing and hope to outmaneuver your opponent(s), or slow down for a second and take a few, quick, accurate shots. So does lack of "iron sights" make Halo 4 a bad game? Absolutely not, it simply makes sense.

I don't know if it is relevant, but I preferred playing Hardcore when I was playing a lot of Modern Warfare 2 and used perks to reduce the time it took to aim down the sights. Also, one of the Call of Duty control options is to choose whether ADS is toggle or hold. The hold option, while initially awkward, I found much more comfortable as I continued playing. In general, I'm a fan of ADS, but have played a lot of Half-Life 2: Deathmatch and Team Fortress 2.

 

[Windcaler]

I like iron sights in most games. It has a place in CoD, Blacklight, Killing Floor, Borderlands, and probably others.

However not every game needs them. Ive not played halo 4, nor will I play it just because Im over the franchise. I dont know if it would have made the gameplay better or not but I think it would have. Back in halo 1 and 2 I wished there were ironsights because many of the guns just felt inaccurate. Still I understand why it wasnt included and I wont knock the game

To be fair, the review has a lot of other valid points to basicly say the game didnt engage the player. The iron sights thing is just a really small piece of the puzzle and should not be looked at as the sole failing of the review.

 

[Shang_Xiang]

There's been a lot of things about Halo's gameplay that doesn't make sense, and most of it is only there in the name of keeping things the same. I get that we want to draw a distinction between Halo and COD, but c'mon, even with Black Ops II going into the more-futuristic direction, it'll still be world's apart from the space fantasy of aliens and space travel. The ability aim down your sights or sprint without a power, wouldn't blur any lines for me, but then again I don't play the multiplayer, which is all gameplay and thus the only thing that would be affected. Even so, the Halo multiplayer is quite a bit different with its cartoony look and mechanics of energy shields and power weapons.

When Reach was released, I thought it was about time they finally added a sprint function. Still, shouldn't it be a default? Not being able to run anymore because you picked up a hologram generator is just silly. Nonetheless, at least they had it, but it got me wondering why we could still only shoot from the hip. The most useful weapons in the game are the ones with head-shot bonuses. The AR and BR from Halo 3 had the exact same damage per bullet, only the latter kills instantly if it's to the head. Ever notice that in Halo 3, ODST, and Reach, what you use for Legendary or LASO campaign is only a headshot weapon and either a plasma pistol or power weapon? Everything else was almost useless.

Me, I wouldn't mind if Halo moved on.

 

[Korten12]

Huh?
Lack of Iron Sites and Cover is literally the only reason I think Halo deserves a place in the gaming universe.

343 has tried to rip off CoD in every other way already. I feel sorry for Halo 5. or Modern Warfare 4 or what ever they're going to call it.

Please do give examples of how it's like CoD, aside from: IT HAZ PERKS! Because Call of Duty invented Loadouts, Perks, and so on. Am I right? No other games ever had them. In fact let's just say Call of Duty invented shooters while we're at it.

:/

Okay...
Let me give this a shot.
Ahem*
IT HAZ PERKS! AND LOADOUTS! AND KILLSTREAKS! AND SO ON!
Halo never had that shit, which is why it was fun.

Perks - Doesn't change the game much at all. They change little things but over all, Gun, Melee, Grenade beat all. These give no advantages over players that a BR or DMR at a range, or an assassination can't beat.

Loadouts - Still don't change much, you can't spawn with power weapons and that's really the end of that. Just by being able to choose between the basic guns don't change the game at all. Since most of the basic weapons were found immeditally basically voiding out the starter weapon.

Killstreaks - The only thing close to kill streaks is the drops, which allow you one random of the following three, 1 power weapon, 1 armor ability, or 1 power up. You choose one of the three but don't get to choose anything more specific than the category. This function is also in some game modes and not all.

I came in to Halo Reach Multyplayer months late and still managed to hold my own and have fun, and that is because the players who were better than me didn't also have better stuff.
I appreciated that Halo was still balanced in the modern era of unbalanced gameplay if more fun for the people who bought new on day 1 and fuck everybody else. Now Halo's adopting the same bullshit model to some degree.

And that is still how it is. Shoot, Grenade, Melee still trumps all. Just like how it has in 1 to Reach and still is true for 4.

I thought I made it clear in my comment that I actually like playing the Halo games and that them being more like CoD is a bad thing, So I don't know where the last part of your comment came from. I mean out of your ass obviously, but I don't see the point. CoD invented shooters? Huh? I know you're trying to make me sound dumb by putting words in my mouth but nothing in my comment even suggested that I liked CoD.

Then don't spout bullshit. You said: "343 has tried to rip off CoD in every other way already," which is a bullshit lie. Halo 4 is still Halo and nothing has changed that.

 

[Mikeyfell]

snip

If you're trying to convince me that all the changes do nothing other than add clutter then why are they even there?

It's still not a step forward.
Halo Reach had balance and elegance going for it. the changes diminish both of those.
Even if vanilla slayer is still intact 343 shouldn't be wasting their time adding clutter to the other game modes

 

[RedDeadFred]

As quickly as "Forward unto dawn" made me want to buy Halo 4, this thread has made me reconsider.

Halo really has just the most idiotic, in-denial fan-base that would make defending the Dreamcast look downright justified.

You should probably edit out the part where you called every Halo fan an idiot before a mod sees it...

OT: I'm glad that Halo is still differentiating itself from all of these war shooters. I doubt I'll buy it because I'm just not that into FPS competitive multiplayer (which is where these games get their longevity) games in general. I'll probably rent it at some point though because I've always enjoyed the Halo campaigns.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

People don't like change, and we've spent so long with Ironsight aiming it's become the norm.

"We've"?

All those people who grew up with 90s first-person shooters would like a word with you, sir.

 

[Korten12]

snip

If you're trying to convince me that all the changes do nothing other than add clutter then why are they even there?

It's still not a step forward.
Halo Reach had balance and elegance going for it. the changes diminish both of those.
Even if vanilla slayer is still intact 343 shouldn't be wasting their time adding clutter to the other game modes

How do they add clutter? They help you specialize your play style. They don't give you an advantage, they simply let you play the game like how you want to.

No, Reach wasn't balanced. It's considered the least balanced Halo thus far.

Watch this to get an indepth look at it.


Reach was bad, the weapon placement made it unbalanced, the AR, magnum and various other guns were useless. The DMR really was the only good primary weapon outside various power weapons like the RPG and Sniper. That and also Armor Lock was completely broken and thankfully has been removed in Halo 4.

 

[Brendan Stepladder]

snip

I see you have missed the point. That point being that a weapon's role in a video game does not have to match the role of its real-life counterpart. Next Halo could contain a pistol that can take down tanks and the fanbase would be perfectly fine with it.

Oh, wait. They essentially already did that with CE.

 

[Vykrel]

I don't understand why he's being declared stupid for stating a preference. He's a games journalist. His views are all encompassing across a broad range of games therefore he won't simply say "Halo doesn't need iron-sights because it's Halo" because he will hold Halo 4 up to the standards of other games. This is a good thing. Disagree with it sure, but don't dwell on the fact that someone criticised a game for not including something that you deem unnecessary.

Personally, I would have actually liked to have seen iron-sights in Halo 4 purely because, ever since Wolfenstein 3D, I've had a preference for being able to aim down the barrel of my gun. How idiotic.

he isnt being declared stupid for his preference, he is being declared stupid because he is clearly incompetent.

firstly, he contradicts himself in a major way. he complains that Halo 4 is too slow and methodical for his tastes, then goes on to say that it doesnt hold up to games like Dishonored and Far Cry 3, two games that largely involve slow, methodical combat. also, all three games are vastly different, so it makes no sense to compare them in the first place.

second, he complains that the game offers too much choice. he wants more linearity and more set pieces, which is absolutely ridiculous. developers pride themselves on offering players more choice. the reviewer, for some reason, prefers having less choice. he might as well just start reviewing films.

third, his most glaring criticism is that he doesnt want Halo 4 to be Halo at all. he wants it to conform what other recent games have been doing. he wants it to be just like the slew of modern military shooters that do little to innovate and copy each other in nearly every way. i dont think i need to tell you that no reviewer should be criticizing any piece of work for setting itself apart from the crowd.

fourth, his insisting of the inclusion of iron sights is not only another example of how he wants the game to be Call of Duty: Halo, it is also totally pointless. iron sights in games like Battlefield actually tighten the bullet spread. in Halo, there is no change to accuracy when zooming in. therefore, iron sights would make no difference. the guns that dont have scopes (or iron sights) are not meant to. they are all close range weapons that would not benefit in any way from having iron sights or scopes. nobody needs to focus their aim with a needler. think about it. just picture it in your head. putting iron sights on every gun in Halo would be like doing the same thing for a twitch shooter like Quake. they dont need iron sights. the accurate, longer range weapons have scopes, the close-range weapons dont. it is completely logical.

finally, he didnt go into any detail in terms of multiplayer, forge (which has been vastly improved), or theater mode. he also completely ignored Spartan Ops, which is a completely new, and major addition to the series.


in all seriousness, the guy is a hack. i know it sounds a little harsh to say this, but he shouldnt be reviewing anything. he is against innovation, uniqueness, and choice. these are three things that everyone should want from a video game. also, he clearly doesnt care about improvements in a sequel, considering he didnt really mention the MANY improvements that Halo 4 has made.

so, there. thats why people are declaring him an idiot.

 

[Kyr Knightbane]

I just love how some people can't function in a shooter without iron sight aiming. Its nice if you are playing a serious military shooter or a sim (ARMA 2 or SWAT or even Rainbow Six Vegas 2 if you want to stretch the definition) However shooters have been doing well without them. If this reviewer found Halo 4, a series that has, to my knowledge, NEVER had Iron Sight aiming, then i'd love for him to review Painkiller.

"No Regenerating health, and only 1 shotgun? 2/10"

People just need to ignore critics and play the games you like because you genuinely like them, not because you are trying to hug a franchise to death.

You like COD? Awesome, go play it. Halo? More power to you. But don't expect me to respect anybody's individual review of a game just because someone else disagreed with them and thought a different feature would ruin it. Play the game because you like it, not because someone else hated it, or reviewed it lower than you would like.

/end rant

 

[Netrigan]

I'm sorry but he said the slow, methodical combat in large areas didn't hold up when compared to Far Cry and, well, isn't slow, careful combat in a big environment kind of the point of Far Cry? And Dishonoured for that matter?

The big difference is Halo really doesn't have a stealth mechanic. Games like Far Cry, Crysis, Dishonored, Deus Ex, and others allow for a much greater variety of play styles. If you enjoy being a ghost who sneaks his way to the objective without being seen, those games let you do that quite often. If you like being the sneaky assassin who picks his opponents off one-by-one without setting off alarms, you can do that. If you enjoy sneaking deep into enemy territory and setting up traps and ambushes, you often can do that. And if you enjoy just wading in and killing anything that moves, there's always that.

For me, Halo is one of those games that sits uncomfortably in the middle of two play styles I really enjoy. I love twitch shooters like Serious Sam, Doom, Borderlands, and even Call of Duty. And I love the slower pace of games that utilize stealth mechanics. But Halo is like this blend of ice cream and fish for me.

 

[Mikeyfell]

How do they add clutter? They help you specialize your play style. They don't give you an advantage, they simply let you play the game like how you want to.

You can't have it both ways, they either help players or they are useless extraneous features.

If they help they skew the balance towards better players, if they're useless they're clutter.
Either way not good.

No, Reach wasn't balanced. It's considered the least balanced Halo thus far.



Reach was bad, the weapon placement made it unbalanced, the AR, magnum and various other guns were useless. The DMR really was the only good primary weapon outside various power weapons like the RPG and Sniper. That and also Armor Lock was completely broken and thankfully has been removed in Halo 4.

Damn man, Halo fanboys.
Reach comes out with the best campaign of the series and they all hate it, I don't know what to think.

Personally I never use rapid fire assault type weapons in any game I play so I never noticed how weak the AR was.

The armor powers were perfectly balanced except for Jetpack being the weakest I suppose. Judicious power use would nullify the DRM's effectiveness pretty nicely. In what universe was armor lock over powered, unless you used it to get unstuck or avoid a splatter the damn thing was a death sentence
But I don't play in MLG so what the hell do I know?

To steer this back on topic, It is a good thing that Halo 4 isn't going to have iron sights. it's just too bad they already decided to include perks, loadouts and killstreaks.

 

[Lt._nefarious]

I'm sorry but he said the slow, methodical combat in large areas didn't hold up when compared to Far Cry and, well, isn't slow, careful combat in a big environment kind of the point of Far Cry? And Dishonoured for that matter?

The big difference is Halo really doesn't have a stealth mechanic. Games like Far Cry, Crysis, Dishonored, Deus Ex, and others allow for a much greater variety of play styles. If you enjoy being a ghost who sneaks his way to the objective without being seen, those games let you do that quite often. If you like being the sneaky assassin who picks his opponents off one-by-one without setting off alarms, you can do that. If you enjoy sneaking deep into enemy territory and setting up traps and ambushes, you often can do that. And if you enjoy just wading in and killing anything that moves, there's always that.

For me, Halo is one of those games that sits uncomfortably in the middle of two play styles I really enjoy. I love twitch shooters like Serious Sam, Doom, Borderlands, and even Call of Duty. And I love the slower pace of games that utilize stealth mechanics. But Halo is like this blend of ice cream and fish for me.

Far Cry 2 lacked stealth, or at least, I couldn't stealth. But the Stealth in Far Cry 2 was really lacking compared to previous entries in the series, and stealth is a tactic that can be used in Halo. Especially in ODST and to an extent Reach you could stealth aroung, find the perfect spot and wait for the perfect time to strike. The chanses are you couldn't use it for an entire battle but it was there...

 

[Netrigan]

Far Cry 2 lacked stealth, or at least, I couldn't stealth. But the Stealth in Far Cry 2 was really lacking compared to previous entries in the series, and stealth is a tactic that can be used in Halo. Especially in ODST and to an extent Reach you could stealth aroung, find the perfect spot and wait for the perfect time to strike. The chanses are you couldn't use it for an entire battle but it was there...

The Cry games are probably the most realistic in their stealth mechanic, which is why they're so damn hard to use. Yes, you would be incredibly visible moving through the brush unless you're moving really slowly. But mostly it's there to sneak into position and launch from a more advantageous position, but if you're really, really good, you can stay stealthy for a good chunk of the game... although the Crysis games just decided to give you a Magic Stealth button, which is easier to use and tons of fun.

Halos mostly uses it to pick where you start trouble, but that's not really a stealth mechanic. If you can't ghost several levels or stealth assassinate your way through it, then it doesn't really have stealth.

 

[Lt._nefarious]

The Cry games are probably the most realistic in their stealth mechanic, which is why they're so damn hard to use. Yes, you would be incredibly visible moving through the brush unless you're moving really slowly. But mostly it's there to sneak into position and launch from a more advantageous position, but if you're really, really good, you can stay stealthy for a good chunk of the game... although the Crysis games just decided to give you a Magic Stealth button, which is easier to use and tons of fun.

Halos mostly uses it to pick where you start trouble, but that's not really a stealth mechanic. If you can't ghost several levels or stealth assassinate your way through it, then it doesn't really have stealth.

In ODST the levels where you played as Rookie were mostly stealth up until the end and Reach, like I say, had sort of stealth with the assassination mechanic, invisibility and stealth sections. Halo2 also had stealth int the form of the Arbiters missions, which gave you a magical "go invisible" button too...

 

[Flames66]

The guy is catching more heat for giving Halo 4 a 7/10 than for his iron sights comments, although that is certainly doing a number on him as well. Justin also got some criticism for his 4/5 score.

Interesting that almost exactly a year ago Jim released his Hate out of Ten episode.

I guess I'm not a fanboy in that I don't really care about the score, I'm still hung up on the absurd criticisms....I mean, asking Halo to have iron sights is to ask it to basically stop being Halo...I just...I don't even.

I agree about the score. I would rate Halo ODST at 6-7/10 at the most.