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

[Jesse Billingsley]

Apparently these cats have never played a Halo game before in their lives.

"Mind you, some folks might find the videogame equivalent of being forced to eat your vegetables a comforting alternative to Microsoft putting a dash of modern in their combat, but when stacked up to Dishonored, Far Cry 3, and Black Ops II, Halo 4?s campaign feels as empty and uninspired as its strong, silent protagonist."

Sorry, but Black Ops II has a decent story? Call of Duty hasn't had a decent story since Call of Duty 4, which was the equivalent to a B rated Action flick.

 

[an annoyed writer]

snip

This takes what I said and blows it completely out of proportion. Let me clarify.

I did not call them stupid, I said they were unnecessary. The context here is in Halo. You see, in Halo, you play as a genetically modified superhuman with cybernetic upgrades and an aim assist system integrated into the armor. All iron sights would do in Halo is artificially reduce the accuracy of whatever firearm you currently wield, and upset game balance in the process.

In Halo, the designers make each weapon fit a specific role. If the weapon has a scope, it'll be used for medium to long-range combat. If it doesn't, you can be certain it's for short to medium-range combat. Having no scope means that the weapon is not meant for range, so having the ability to "make the gun more accurate" doesn't make sense on something whose purpose is not to be accurate. This helps define each weapon's purpose. This way the player is quickly informed that if they want to pick off others from a distance, they should pick the Designated Marksman Rifle, and If they want to fight enemies up close, they should pick an Assault Rifle or Shotgun. The purpose here is clarity: to be clear which weapon does what, and what it should be used for. Having iron sights would upset this: being able to zoom in and make any gun more accurate would interfere with the understanding that's meant to be communicated to the player. After all, why would you pick a DMR when you could snipe with an assault rifle? The reason you can't snipe with with an AR is clearly communicated to you by it not having a "make the gun more accurate" button: it's meant for CQC. If you want something accurate, go with a DMR or Battle Rifle.

This changes when you've got a third person shooter. In may TPS games, you have a camera that can freely rotate around the player character. The iron sights button simply becomes the aim button, so you don't always have to point your gun at something if you want to look at it. Then, if you want to aim at something, you press the aim button. However, Halo is not a Third Person Shooter, so putting the function in Halo makes no sense.

Was that clear enough?

 

[Poetic Nova]

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?

good question actually, but that is how it was explained.

Because the game doesn't bother going into that much detail, having this circle reticule bouncing around your screen when you melee or reload would be kinda obnoxious.

Everything else is in his helmet, the lack of recoil is because of his suit.

I think the reticule only is there so that the Spartan can see where to aim since it would be pretty obvious that you can't shoot while using melee etc. Would otherwise be obnoxious as you have stated.

 

[mjcabooseblu]

When it's halo being reviwed badly for stupid reasons it's hell on the escapist, when it's zelda everyone nods and agrees.

Your opinions will forever be taken with a grain of salt now because you just admitted to thinking that CoD5>CoD4.

 

[Squilookle]

Watch me criticise them for liking Ironsights in the first place. Take THAT! AND THAT!

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

The dude's entitled to his opinion, but it seems like he believes that once a COD game introduces a mechanic, then it's automatically "the innovation that any shooter needs from that point on". Halo plays by its own rules, and it requires more of a fair deal of thought in order to do the fighting. Major fail for saying that the story fell short compared to two games that haven't been released yet. "I mean, it's not modern enough! Compare it to these games from the future you haven't played yet and it doesn't stack up!"

343 didn't want people tapping the scope to lock on to someone on the other side of the country. I've never enjoyed a Halo game, but they did well considering that they stuck to their guns and managed to avoid making this a copypasta as well. Maybe I should give the franchise a (4th) try, I dunno.

 

[Psychedelic Spartan]

"It seems like fun! I hate it!"

Graa. People hate change too much.

But it isn't change for Halo! Halo has never had iron sights on its guns. I don't get why Halo 4 is being criticized for being Halo.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Apparently these cats have never played a Halo game before in their lives.

"Mind you, some folks might find the videogame equivalent of being forced to eat your vegetables a comforting alternative to Microsoft putting a dash of modern in their combat, but when stacked up to Dishonored, Far Cry 3, and Black Ops II, Halo 4?s campaign feels as empty and uninspired as its strong, silent protagonist."

Sorry, but Black Ops II has a decent story? Call of Duty hasn't had a decent story since Call of Duty 4, which was the equivalent to a B rated Action flick.

I wonder if they bothered to play Halo 4 at all, "Halo 4's campaign feels as empty and uninspired as its strong, silent protagonist."

"Halo 4's... strong, silent protagonist"

Umm, The Master Chief talks, quite a lot you idiot.

A review that is quite baffling in my opinion, it is an overtly positive review after all, and his criticisms are usually downgraded or clarified later on as being small niggles, but that statement about it lacking iron sights, being too open and needing to be more like COD is so... off the mark it's quite staggering.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

When it's halo being reviwed badly for stupid reasons it's hell on the escapist, when it's zelda everyone nods and agrees.

To be fair it's not like the focus of the criticism is "Oh Noes, he gave Halo a 7/10 how could he?!?"
It's a legitimate gripe against a reviewer that has said the Halo gameplay suffers from not adopting the ironsights twitch shooting style popularised in Call of Duty, and implys throughout that if Halo wanted to innovate it should copy COD, and become more linear and set piece based.

It's more a reaction to a professional saying that more games should be like COD than saying that Halo is bad, and I'd hardly call a single 2 page thread an explosion. Make a thread about how Majora's Mask would have been improved if Link used Iron sights, the plot was focused on more big ticketed sequences, and the world was totally linear, and see how the Escapist reacts, but check up on your life insurance policy first...

 

[Legion]

There's always going to be people like that.

Exactly, just ignore their stupid opinions like you do the ones who claim that GTA causes killing sprees.

 

[Norrdicus]

I did not call them stupid, I said they were unnecessary. The context here is in Halo. You see, in Halo, you play as a genetically modified superhuman with cybernetic upgrades and an aim assist system integrated into the armor.

Then thank you, that context was seriously needed in your first post. However, you still go and say that "It only really makes sense to use such a feature when you've got a scope or you've got a third-person shooter", which is entirely untrue, and ignores FPS that are NOT Halo. What is left is a false dichotomy between Halo and TPS.

All iron sights would do in Halo is artificially reduce the accuracy of whatever firearm you currently wield, and upset game balance in the process.

This either means that most games with iron sights do the system all wrong, or you do not know how they work yourself. The existence of iron sights does not and should not reduce the basic accuracy of any gun. Iron sights are not magical insta-sniper-switches, I should know. I can only hit a target at 150 meters with an RK 95 TP assault rifle, while lying down on the ground, 8 times out of 12 when I take my time to aim. And that's to generally hit, my chances of headshotting are around 10% if even that.

In Halo, the designers make each weapon fit a specific role. If the weapon has a scope, it'll be used for medium to long-range combat. If it doesn't, you can be certain it's for short to medium-range combat. Having no scope means that the weapon is not meant for range, so having the ability to "make the gun more accurate" doesn't make sense on something whose purpose is not to be accurate.

I repeat, ironsights don't simply make the gun itself more accurate. Sure, it might decrease recoil, as now your face is also holding the gun steady, but the general bullet spread is still as reliable or unreliable as before. Looking down SMG ironsights should not make the bullet spread any less close-range oriented as regularly shooting with it.

For example, in STALKER, even though I can look down the barrel of my SMG, I'd still not use it outside urban enviroment, as there I can keep enemies at under 30-meter range.

This helps define each weapon's purpose. This way the player is quickly informed that if they want to pick off others from a distance, they should pick the Designated Marksman Rifle, and If they want to fight enemies up close, they should pick an Assault Rifle or Shotgun. The purpose here is clarity: to be clear which weapon does what, and what it should be used for.

This system ignores the existence of "jack-of-all-trades" guns, which assault rifles are. Now, I've not played Halo in years, but I'm positive there are automatic weapons with rather nice effective range, but spread that suffers in longer ranges.

Plus, the role of each gun does not suddenly turn immensely harder to convey if you give players limited amount of better aiming when they look at the sights of a short-range weapon.

Pistols have simplistic ironsights. Why? Because putting more elaborate sights, or heaven forbid, a scope, is often wasted effort and resources, as the gun will still be inaccurate as hell.

After all, why would you pick a DMR when you could snipe with an assault rifle?

Because DMR is innately more accurate thanks to longer barrel (less spread), scope (helps you make use of the afore-mentioned accuracy), and bipod (significantly less recoil)

The reason you can't snipe with with an AR is clearly communicated to you by it not having a "make the gun more accurate" button: it's meant for CQC. If you want something accurate, go with a DMR or Battle Rifle.

CQC??? Either we have completely other definitions of that or you ignore that this is one of the things that defines an assault rifle :

And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Was that clear enough?

Clearer, definitely

 

[peruvianskys]

Honestly though, the "excessively large environments" criticism is definitely fair. Halo seems to always have waaay too much empty space in most maps.

 

[Ravinoff]

It's a valid complaint, especially considering how screwy the reticle can be in Halo. I'd certainly appreciate them a lot.

Just imagine for a minute ironsights with the needler. It would be so freaking distracting noone would ever land a hit.

OT: I like ironsight in Killing Floor because they serve major functions (no reticle without ironsights, but you move slower with them on). Not a huge fan of them in other places.

Well you'd hardly need them on the Needler. That thing is basically aimed by pointing in the general direction of the enemy and dumping the mag at them. Hell, I wouldn't even ask for sights on Covenant weapons. They're mostly energy-based, so they should be dead accurate at any range. But if I could get, say, the DMR or Battle Rifle without the scope and using a good set of irons, I'd be very, very happy.

 

[MammothBlade]

These low points are openly exacerbated by the series? staunch refusal to get with the times when it comes to game mechanics and level design, ignoring obvious enhancements like big-ticket sequences and proper iron-sights mechanics in favor of their age-old addiction to slow, methodical combat in unnecessarily large environments. And while I get that 343i was deathly afraid to come in and mess with the elements most consider Halo canon, it?s a lot to ask of us who play other games in the genre to continue to stomach a core most left behind half a decade ago.

By "get with the times" you mean lose its identity and become just another generic shooter. "Big ticket"
sequences don't necessarily improve a game, not when they go for superficiality over substance.

Why would you need stupid iron sights in a SPACE shooter anyway?

I'm not a Halo fan, but that is a dumb review.

 

[Right Hook]

That guy should really be fired, not only are his complaints about Halo 4 not innovating completely ridiculous but considering the site gave MW3 a 9, how about a little consistency guys? MW3 didn't change virtually at all. He's also really not that great of a writer, ultimately a waste, just another warm body who feels his voice deserves to be heard. Get rid of him and pick up someone with realistic opinions, who isn't trash. I don't care if you give Halo 4 a 2/10 but you need to back it up with real proof that it is deserving of it, not this "modern games need to all be the same because that's innovative" shit.

 

[Reaper195]

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

True, but that's most other FPS. From the videos I've seen, Halo 4 follows the same formula the previous Halo games have followed. Large open areas, a tonne of guys to deal with how you want...and no iron sights. Essentially, it sounds like they're complaining Halo isn't playing like CoD, but playing like...well...Halo.