Halo 4 criticized for not having iron sights...wut?
- Thread starter Erttheking
- Start date
Those looking for a new purchase yes but this is 8 games or so in, the only ones left are die hard fans who want to hear it's all perfect or rather more of the same.GamingAwesome1 said:
And the reviewer mentions elements that made people love Halo as detriments... you can imagine some might get upset.
Wat.
Dude. Ironsights in an FPS when you have a cursor is POINTLESS. Unless the ironsight aiming DRAMATICALLY increases the gun's accuracy (Borderlands 2 does that. Ironsighting makes the accuracy cursor much much smaller), then it is totally pointless.
Aside from borderlands 2, I find that using ironsights in an FPS dramatically lowers my accuracy.
Also, they criticized halo for slow methodical combat and wide open areas? Umm....What? That's...uh...
Do ALL games need to be CoD clones to make that guy happy? I mean, there are different styles of games, and indeed different styles of shooters. What would he say about my beloved Unreal 99, I wonder? "Crap graphics, unrealistic weapons, no ironsights, and people take more than 2 shots to kill with a pistol"?
Dude. Ironsights in an FPS when you have a cursor is POINTLESS. Unless the ironsight aiming DRAMATICALLY increases the gun's accuracy (Borderlands 2 does that. Ironsighting makes the accuracy cursor much much smaller), then it is totally pointless.
Aside from borderlands 2, I find that using ironsights in an FPS dramatically lowers my accuracy.
Also, they criticized halo for slow methodical combat and wide open areas? Umm....What? That's...uh...
Do ALL games need to be CoD clones to make that guy happy? I mean, there are different styles of games, and indeed different styles of shooters. What would he say about my beloved Unreal 99, I wonder? "Crap graphics, unrealistic weapons, no ironsights, and people take more than 2 shots to kill with a pistol"?
I very much doubt there aren't still people undecided about whether to get the game. There are always some people who have only now just considered picking up a Halo title. It may not seem like this is the case but I can assure you there is always someone just "discovering" a long running series.Mr.K. said:
Also, people have different tastes. If he didn't like those elements, those are his opinions and it's quite literally the guy's job to express and justify said opinions, so he should do so, regardless of the fact that it might upset people who's opinions differ from him. To do otherwise would demonstrate a lack of credibility, or at least being an enormous pussy too scared to put his true feelings out there because it differs from some people. Which is the precise opposite of what he's done and I'm quite pleased he didn't shy away.
I don't think he's the most solid reviewer on the planet but I can't fault the guy for being honest.
I don't think he's REALLY saying he want's a CoD clone or linear maps, just that they are unnecessarily wide.
There is a difference between size of levels and how linear they are. Now Halo games may not be such blatant corridors shooters as COD but they are still very linear if spacious.
These are the maps of non-linear shooters
But most shooters these days lack the map complexity you see here. They have very little branching paths. Halo is little better than CoD in this respect.
ANd if the levels are going to be so large, is it really that they are too large given the aspects. Halo does have a very slow running speed. Compare to the default running speed (not sprint, sustained run) in Doom or Quake, it's way WAY faster than Halo which has a very slow plodding pace. Doomguy could probably outrun Master Chief if he was riding a Warthog.
Is he saying the open-environments LEND TO iron-sights and their absence is therefore in the negative?
The thing about iron sights is they have very little to do with realism (especially for Halo where you have a visor that shows where the gun is aiming) and much more a game-play aid, that console's need especially.
Console shooters used to depend on lock-on mechanics for you to stand any chance of hitting what you were aiming at. But now the main focus is on "aim-assist" where basically the aiming reticule is magnetically attracted to the target* also been described as a kind of "molasses effect" like as the reticule is passed over the target it is slowed down as if dragging a spoon through syrupy molasses, it don't drag it in there but it will slow it's passage.
This can be a problem to have this "aim-assist" to the same extent all the time, it becomes hard to look around. So with an "aim-down sight" you lower overall sensitivity and that "stickiness" over targets, makes it much easier to aim. You have essentially two look-sensitivities, one ideal for navigating an environment and one ideal for aiming.
This is quite adequate for compensating for the shortcomings of thumbstick aiming compared to mouse aim. It's not just that mouse is more accurate in terms of the electronic sensors but also ergonomically. The hand on a mouse can shift the fingers and pivot the mouse in the heel of the hand or make broad sweeping motions, you get a broad range of movement yet precision when you need it. I can single-pixel snip without zoom in Serious Sam yet in Halo the time I need to be pixel-accurate the target of opportunity is gone.
(*It's actually more complex. What's actually happening is variable sensitivity whether the reticule is near or on the target, so if you tilt the thumbstick so that the reticule passes over an enemy then it will slow down [for the same angle on the controller] when near and on the target. This is interpreted as a "feel" as you develop a kinetic relationship to how the controls respond to your input.)
I understand not EVERY gun in Halo 4 has aim-down-sights, but a lot of them have some kind of zoom/scope mechanic.
TL;DR: screw your Halo vs CoD comparisons, compare Halo to Doom.
And I've been playing a doom mod called Brutal Doom where a lot of the weapons get an aim-down-sight mechanic. And it doesn't turn the game into Call of Doomty... the weapons still have tight enough spread at close range that you only NEED the aim-down-sight for long range where it is appreciated. And doom is FAST and there are more branching paths in one map of one episode than there are in an entire Halo or CoD game.
I liked Halo ODST as you had an open world city, that was fun, that was not a locked linear path. Shame the same team that supposedly worked on ODST abandoned that for Halo 4.
There is a difference between size of levels and how linear they are. Now Halo games may not be such blatant corridors shooters as COD but they are still very linear if spacious.
These are the maps of non-linear shooters
Doom (1993):
(note= these levels are full of teleporters, secret rooms and hidden shortcuts)
Bioshock (2007):
(note= these levels are full of teleporters, secret rooms and hidden shortcuts)
Bioshock (2007):
But most shooters these days lack the map complexity you see here. They have very little branching paths. Halo is little better than CoD in this respect.
ANd if the levels are going to be so large, is it really that they are too large given the aspects. Halo does have a very slow running speed. Compare to the default running speed (not sprint, sustained run) in Doom or Quake, it's way WAY faster than Halo which has a very slow plodding pace. Doomguy could probably outrun Master Chief if he was riding a Warthog.
Is he saying the open-environments LEND TO iron-sights and their absence is therefore in the negative?
The thing about iron sights is they have very little to do with realism (especially for Halo where you have a visor that shows where the gun is aiming) and much more a game-play aid, that console's need especially.
Console shooters used to depend on lock-on mechanics for you to stand any chance of hitting what you were aiming at. But now the main focus is on "aim-assist" where basically the aiming reticule is magnetically attracted to the target* also been described as a kind of "molasses effect" like as the reticule is passed over the target it is slowed down as if dragging a spoon through syrupy molasses, it don't drag it in there but it will slow it's passage.
This can be a problem to have this "aim-assist" to the same extent all the time, it becomes hard to look around. So with an "aim-down sight" you lower overall sensitivity and that "stickiness" over targets, makes it much easier to aim. You have essentially two look-sensitivities, one ideal for navigating an environment and one ideal for aiming.
This is quite adequate for compensating for the shortcomings of thumbstick aiming compared to mouse aim. It's not just that mouse is more accurate in terms of the electronic sensors but also ergonomically. The hand on a mouse can shift the fingers and pivot the mouse in the heel of the hand or make broad sweeping motions, you get a broad range of movement yet precision when you need it. I can single-pixel snip without zoom in Serious Sam yet in Halo the time I need to be pixel-accurate the target of opportunity is gone.
(*It's actually more complex. What's actually happening is variable sensitivity whether the reticule is near or on the target, so if you tilt the thumbstick so that the reticule passes over an enemy then it will slow down [for the same angle on the controller] when near and on the target. This is interpreted as a "feel" as you develop a kinetic relationship to how the controls respond to your input.)
I understand not EVERY gun in Halo 4 has aim-down-sights, but a lot of them have some kind of zoom/scope mechanic.
TL;DR: screw your Halo vs CoD comparisons, compare Halo to Doom.
And I've been playing a doom mod called Brutal Doom where a lot of the weapons get an aim-down-sight mechanic. And it doesn't turn the game into Call of Doomty... the weapons still have tight enough spread at close range that you only NEED the aim-down-sight for long range where it is appreciated. And doom is FAST and there are more branching paths in one map of one episode than there are in an entire Halo or CoD game.
I liked Halo ODST as you had an open world city, that was fun, that was not a locked linear path. Shame the same team that supposedly worked on ODST abandoned that for Halo 4.
Well it can have some advantages:aegix drakan said:
-Zoom:
a significant factor applies to many weapons not just sniper rifles. It has also a "somatic" effect just helping you focus on aiming
-Reduced sensitivity:
so the movement of the thumbstick moves the cursor slower, great for aiming but this sensitivity would be unworkable for general navigation as it would take several seconds to turn around and face a threat coming from behind.
-Aim-assist change:
Aim assist can be super high, so high that the cursor will stick like glue to even a target you haven't spotted yet in the surroundings. It can be problematic to have this level of aim-assist on all the time, so many games have light aim-assist when not aiming-down-sights yet it dials up to 11 when ADS-ing.
-Change fire mode:
Not seen often, I've only seen it in mods like Brutal Doom, when aiming down sight the fire-mode automatically switches from full-auto to semi-auto, Makes sense as if you're taking the time to aim at long range you want to be more careful with each shot.
None of this to do with tightening the spread, in all cases the bullets can fire in the same way each bullet heading straight down the line from the cursor. So "accuracy" in gun-ballistics terms is in all cases 100%. But the human factor in accuracy, that can be changed with an "ADS" like mechanic. Not all weapons benefit from it. Things like flamethrowers, shotguns or area-effect weapons like rocket launchers.
You ever consider a game could not be like Halo... yet also not be like CoD?
Compare with how fast FPS games used to be:
No mods or cheats to increase speed, that's not even a "sprint", that's the sustained running speed.
Halo does have a particularly plodding pace. The areas are quite large. Now large isn't complex or varied. Large is just large. Large jsut means you have to wait longer to move in for the kill. And Halo's enemies, weapons and health limitations all slow down th ability to swiftly advance.
Unreal didn't need aim-down-sights as it was a PC exclusive. PC gives the speed and precision that a "crutch" like aim-down-sights or even aim-assist are not needed. Aim down sights are there for reasons OTHER than "realism".
But Halo 4 is an Xbox 360 exclusive, it can only be played with a thumbstick controller. And the wide open maps and slow movement speed means a lot of long range combat.
Always thought it was like every weapon is treated like a mini sniper rifle.ka_saa said:
Classic games had one or two "sniper weapons" where a button would be pressed to zoom in and get more distinct sights. The venerable Half Life had this for the Magnum and the Crossbow you could "aim-down-sights" to zoom in though all it did was zoom, the guns were always lazer accurate, anywhere the crosshair pointed the bullet landed right in the middle of where the crosshairs lay.
It's just now CoD has introduced the idea that EVERY weapon should have an alt-fire mode of a sniper. Even pistols. Unless you are dual wielding, then what would use-sights fires the other gun.
But COD introduced something else: balls HUGE hipfire. So wide you couldn't hit the broad side of the barn. Aim-down-sights was a downright necessity. The thing is the spread isn't particularly useful, it spreads it so wide you can't be effective with it.
My opinion: games should be open up to weapons having more interesting alternate fire modes than just "use sights" yet can have "use sights". And they shouldn't force the use of aim-down-sight by making normal firing so inaccurate that you could only kill an opponent quick enough if you were close enough to bump into their hitbox.
I've been playing Brutal Doom mod and loving the way it handles aim-down-sight:
The rifle (replaces the pistol) is laser accurate always, but alt-fire goes to aim-down-sights where there is slights zoom and it goes to semi-auto mode.
With the shotgun, it's very effective just firing normally the spread is just enough that you don't have to be dead-on to hit the little weak ones, but not so wide that you can't land all the pellets on the big tough enemies.
Alt-fire switches to an aim-down-sights mode where the spread is tightened at the cost of rate of fire.
You never NEED the aim-down-sight in the typical combat distances, it's only ever a BENEFIT at long ranges. It add
Other alt fires are just handy like the double barrel shotgun the primary fire it fires both barrels, alt fire fires one barrel at a time.
Well yeah... ODST was Bungie, and Halo 4 is 343i. Plus 343i has a whole Shield World, ODST was a City. One is very large the other is very small compared to the other, an open world wouldn't work for Halo 4. Unless the Forerunners built a giant shield world and just placed everything in a very small vicinity.Treblaine said:
Also to your Low speed, you have Sprint now in Halo 4 at all times.
well for one, it wouldn't be an "Iron Sight", maybe a "Synthetic Carbon Material Sight" or better yet "Optics", sorry have to be a failed military nerd, its quite sad really, Screw iron sights, yeah maybe make the ridicule on the HUD a little bit smaller to add accuracy, but when you look at the majority of UNSC Rifles in the game, I don't think that they would EVER need an Iron Sight, I mean the whole point is to have them wired into the Soldiers HUD. and on top of that, HALO is in no way men't to be taken in a realistic nature, it focuses on fun and balancing the strengths and weaknesses of different weapons, not just an all powerful Assault rifle that can kill across the map with little effort
That's not what loadouts do, but perks mess with the balance. There will be a couple perks that make you better than everybody who isn't using those perks. And the odds that none of the perks will be overpowered is zero because 343 is staffed by humans.Korten12 said:
Also adding all the lazer guns is weird. That'll throw off the balance for sure, and add clutter. You don't need 2 different shotguns I thought they figured that out in Halo 3. and the BR, the DMR and the Carbine? Talk about clutter.
Actually implying Reach was the only good one, obviously.
True, I'll give you that one.
Under developed compared to who? Master Chief is more boring than a stale box of dull. and Johnson was copied direct from the big book of stereotype drill Sargents. And Spark was a plot device who's only purpose was to spew exposition. and the other characters are too anemic to even make fun of.
So when Reach gave me 5 one dimensional one of which had like half an arc I was like "Whooooooo!"
Unless you mean compared to other games, then... yeah. But if you care about character development why are you playing the Halo games?
True, but the Halo campaigns have been steadily getting better the whole time and I'd hate to see that stop with Halo 4. I haven't played it yet so, I'll continue to speak out my ass when I say everything I've seen so far make me feel bad for the future of Halo campaign and multyplayer.
See, it's fun to be a douchebag on the internet isn't it?
I've played hundreds of Reach MP games and even won a few. I've fired all the guns, I've been shot by all the guns. When I sucked with the AR I assumed it was because I always suck with AR's. Not that it was inherently worse than the other guns
Like I said I got into Reach MP months late so I probably missed the overpowered armor lock.
It was really only good for warthogs and plasmas, in a straight up gun fight sprint and hologram were way better
That Youtube video you posted was talking about MLG wasn't it? When else would you need to count how many frames it took to get a kill.
Well I'm sure I've given you plenty of fodder to come up with clever way to throw back at me while we try to come up with increasingly roundabout ways to say that it's a good thing Halo 4 doesn't have iron sight aiming.
I've reworded my reply to this about 5 times and it still didn't seem right. I've come to the conclusion that I just cannot find the words...
Excuse my language fellow escapees but
Fuck off Reviewer.
Excuse my language fellow escapees but
Fuck off Reviewer.
The main reason is that I don't have to get my Spartan Rank to level 34 before I have access to the spring ability.erttheking said:
Someone who has played longer or played better having access to more or better stuff is what fucks up the balance.
If you're some level 1 who joins a game and you're up against better players who also have better gear and perks you're going to die. A lot. Which is why I can't play CoD for 10 seconds without getting killed 11 times.
Where as in Halo I'm never the best player but all the weapons are on the map and I can play with what I'm comfortable with. If I have to unlock the Needler, Halo's dead.
And I'm not being rude, I'm just saying stuff that you don't agree with. It's hard to tell on the internet sometimes especially when Halo is involved. The worst part is that the guy who I'm arguing with agrees with me that it's good Halo doesn't have iron sights. So I've been lost since the beginning of the conversation.
Their primary criticism is that its really just every halo game, and ever old school console shooter you've ever played.erttheking said:
7 / 10 isn't a bad score. People need to stop thinking that with 10 potential points to gain, every game needs to sit somewhere from 6 (being awful) to 10 (being a bought out review). This isn't college. The game isn't not going to get credits that count toward it's major if it doesn't score a B or better in the class. If you actually read the review, you would have noticed that they said it's a good game, but that good isn't enough for a Halo title.
So naturally it's going to get hammered when it wants to pretend that there's absolutely nothing new worth bringing to the table at a design level. While it's a bit slim on explanation, iron sights add some level of depth to the already shallow game play.
I'm just curious. Have you ever even played a console version of a shooter? Or is this just hearsay and hyperbole.xDarc said:
This is HALO, so the review range is 9.0 to 10.0. Anything else is trashing the game.acosn said:
You couldn't win, could you. The game cops it for taking elements from CoD, then they cop it again for NOT taking something from CoD.
I'm sorry but when did aim down sights become a bad thing?
Yes the article the OP quoted is retarded, ADS certainly doesn't have to be present in EVERY game out there, but when did it become some sin or some mark of a casual gamer?
I try to view FPS's with ADS and without the same way I view the distinction between JRPG and WRPG in the overly broad genre of "RPG".
They both have their place, they're both legitimate, and people can enjoy one or the other (or even both!)
Yes the article the OP quoted is retarded, ADS certainly doesn't have to be present in EVERY game out there, but when did it become some sin or some mark of a casual gamer?
I try to view FPS's with ADS and without the same way I view the distinction between JRPG and WRPG in the overly broad genre of "RPG".
They both have their place, they're both legitimate, and people can enjoy one or the other (or even both!)