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

[Netrigan]

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...

But I think you'll agree that the game is largely about going in and fucking shit up. When I played Reach, most of the missions seemed to have several set-pieces where you had to assault a position or defend a position.

Not to suggest Halo needs stealth to be good, but illustrating why someone like the reviewer (or me) would enjoy a game with slow methodical combat in one circumstance and dislike it another. I'm not huge on stealth in games (mostly because I kind of suck at it), but I do enjoy a game that allows me to use stealth-based tactics. Combat Evolved and Reach really weren't that type of experience for me.

 

[Lt._nefarious]

But I think you'll agree that the game is largely about going in and fucking shit up. When I played Reach, most of the missions seemed to have several set-pieces where you had to assault a position or defend a position.

Not to suggest Halo needs stealth to be good, but illustrating why someone like the reviewer (or me) would enjoy a game with slow methodical combat in one circumstance and dislike it another. I'm not huge on stealth in games (mostly because I kind of suck at it), but I do enjoy a game that allows me to use stealth-based tactics. Combat Evolved and Reach really weren't that type of experience for me.

I can agree that the main goal of Halo is to mess up some poor alien bastards day in increasingly extravagant ways, yes. Although I stick my belief that there is stealth if you look for it. If you really try and find it. I take it you didn't play ODST because like I say, there was a heavy stealth focus in many parts of that game. They even went as far as to make your primary weapon silenced...

Anyway: I'll have to bring this to an end here. Enjoyed the conversation, I think you made good points and what have you, but I really must be off. Feel free to reply just know I won't have a rebuttal. Anywho, places to see, people to do, fake Mill Jovovich porn to surf...

 

[Erttheking]

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.

I find that things like armor abilities and perks help spice up the gameplay, making things more varied and interesting, helping optimize your personal playstyle. I can't really think of any situation in which they completely break the game...wait, how come perks are bad but armor abilities are good? Aren't perks kinda like armor abilities? That's how I view it. Also armor lock gone...thank god, the hardlight shield looks much more balanced.

As for loadouts, they don't let you get power weapons, so it's not really any concern, besides loadouts were in Halo Reach, but woefully underused. The killstreaks are really just the ability to call down some ordinance, and if you really hate it that much, it'll be limited to the Infinity Slayer gametype.

Also, no offense...but you're being a little rude.

 

[BaronUberstein]

Why can't we have both iron sights and big maps?

I'd love that. <__<

 

[Skin]

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.

wot m8?

Reach had a terrible campaign. Not as bad as Halo 2, but it was almost there. It was linear, overly set piece heavy and it just dragged the fuck on.

CE had a great campaign despite some terrible level design (looking at you The Library), Halo 3 had some of the best levels I have ever played in any game (The Ark, The Covenant) and ODST was different but still great.

 

[Korten12]

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, that isn't how it works. You can have choice and still have balance. Neither are mutally exclusive. If all guns are good, then it doesn't matter what gun you spawn with. That's the nature of shooters, if balanced no matter what gun someone has it should be balanced. That if that person has an RPG that you can still beat them with another gun.

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.

Implying that Reach is the best is fact right? People didn't like Reach because:

1) It broke canon and tried to explain in it in a half-ass way.
2) The characters were very undeveloped. The tone was there but the character really did just feel like they were there just to die in epic ways.

Also we weren't talking about the Campaign at all, so why did you pull that out of your ass? That was a clear attempt to knock on Halo fans.

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

Which indicates you didn't use all the weapons therefore can't comment on their balance.

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

No, Armor Lock was broken, end of. You could literally destroy veichles with it by having them ram into you. It let you survive plasma grenades, stunned those who meleed it, and stunned everyone in the vicinty when you got out of it. It's the only one they had to nerf it twice because of how broken it was. Main reason why out of all of the armor abilites its the one not returning.

But I don't play in MLG so what the hell do I know?

Implying that I play MLG, or that all Halo players play MLG.

 

[mooncalf]

Halo 4 *could* turn out sucking horribly for many reasons, but not having iron sights seems like a particularly inconsequential nit to pick.

 

[Jailbird408]

I've never played any of those ultra-realistic FPS's. I don't even know what iron sights are.

 

[Squilookle]

Right from the outset that title made my blood boil. You see, I come from an era without linear corridor-fests and Iron sights. I like big environments that I can explore and make new strategies for various encounters. I like to be able to pick off some unsuspecting fool with a sniper rifle, jump in a car, drive THROUGH the enemy encampment with my buddy on the gun, then use a jetpack to get to the top of a tower and fight the guy up top with a sword. And I like not ramming the iron sights up my nostrils while doing so. Hell, I'll go so far as to say those things are completely unnecessary, and only serve to make your average gun less accurate. It only really makes sense to use such a feature when you've got a scope or you've got a third-person shooter.

I wish they brought back run and gun laser crosshairs with barely any Cone of Fire.

Now a days, unless someone's face is right up in your grill, you must use stupid Aim down Sight mechanic. Because the CoF expands to your whole screen after a few shots and bullets fly out at right angles.

It's consoles, they don't want you moving and shooting. It's too hard for everyone to walk and chew gum and to sell copies they need you to kindly stand still and aim down sights so someone else gets a turn to kill you.

That's FPS gaming today, that's what it's come down to and it's pathetic.

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.

Ironsights can get flushed down the toilet for all I care. They're not realistic, they don't add immersion, and they just impede both movement and vision. I couldn't care less that running and gunning is less 'realistic'. It's a metric tonne more fun.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

The 'unnecessarily large environments' bit.. so ludicrous that it's making me rage. One of the things that Halo: CE and the franchise as a whole has been praised for was the open combat spaces that it allowed you to explore. Taking them away would make it stop feeling the slightest bit like a Halo game.

Slow, methodical combat = bad? Raaaaaaaage.

Leaving this thread now.

 

[Jaeke]

Well first off, where has this idiot been the past five entries.

And second... yeah, it's still pretty damn stupid.

 

[xshadowscreamx]

for a game set in the future, do we need iron sights?.. process the progress

 

[Haefulz]

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, that isn't how it works. You can have choice and still have balance. Neither are mutally exclusive. If all guns are good, then it doesn't matter what gun you spawn with. That's the nature of shooters, if balanced no matter what gun someone has it should be balanced. That if that person has an RPG that you can still beat them with another gun.

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.

Implying that Reach is the best is fact right? People didn't like Reach because:

1) It broke canon and tried to explain in it in a half-ass way.
2) The characters were very undeveloped. The tone was there but the character really did just feel like they were there just to die in epic ways.

Also we weren't talking about the Campaign at all, so why did you pull that out of your ass? That was a clear attempt to knock on Halo fans.

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

Which indicates you didn't use all the weapons therefore can't comment on their balance.

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

No, Armor Lock was broken, end of. You could literally destroy veichles with it by having them ram into you. It let you survive plasma grenades, stunned those who meleed it, and stunned everyone in the vicinty when you got out of it. It's the only one they had to nerf it twice because of how broken it was. Main reason why out of all of the armor abilites its the one not returning.

But I don't play in MLG so what the hell do I know?

Implying that I play MLG, or that all Halo players play MLG.

Where did Reach break canon?

 

[Warachia]

"And while many of the Forge faithful will breathe a resounding sigh of relief at the sameness of it all, I can?t help but wonder if yet another by-the-book romp was what we needed."

Wow, he complains that the game was generic (according to him) and in the same sentence complains it wasn't generic enough.

 

[fulano]

I've never played any of those ultra-realistic FPS's. I don't even know what iron sights are.

the iron sights is the bullshit maneuver where you get an obstructed zoomed view. And, that, is supposed to help you aim. It slows you the fuck down, also. It became the norm because it emulates actual aming, somewhat. But it ain't even realistic, to boot.

In fact, there are no realistic shooters out there, not even America's Army. The only games that I know of (do correct me if I'm wrong) that truly tried to do some approximation of hardcore aiming and bullet simulations were those in the S.T.A.L.K.E.R franchise, and shooting was a hot fucking mess for those of us used to the arcade style of the 90's--though I guess that was part of their charm because, after all, they were all fucking hard--turns out that actually aiming and shooting a weapon for reals is not like in the videogames!

Realistic does not always equal fun the way most people are accustomed. I have zero problem with large environments and run-and-gunny style gameplay. if I want to see realistic war shit I'll watch a documentary.

 

[Smeggs]

When the fuck did Halo ever have iron sights? Can somebody fill me in on this mechanic I must have missed?

I knew we had scopes, but...wow, I must've been playing wrong this whole time.

 

[Vigormortis]

Halo doesnt need it, reviewer should have known that the crosshair displayed on a Spartans helmet comes from the sights of the gun.

If that's the case, why doesn't the reticule shift all over the screen anytime Master Chief uses his gun as a melee weapon/pulls his gun up to reload it?

Better question:

Why is it Halo has pretty much always...ALWAYS...had it's cross-hair below the center of the screen?

Seriously, look:

Spoiler

Just...why? To force players to look up at the skyboxes, in an attempt to make them "appreciate" them more?