So new enemies, new weapons, new game modes, new vehicles, new environments, and new spins on characters are "glorified software updates"? Whatever you say pal.TheCommanders said:
Halo 4 - Underwhelming?
- Thread starter TheCommanders
- Start date
Well if by that you mean the slightly different colored shotgun and assault rifles, then sure there's new weapons. I will admit that Cortana could have an interesting story arc, but the chief is the same old mr mcblandy bland soldier.erttheking said:
Oh yes, the 30 seconds of on screen action that you saw the, yeah, that was undeniable proof that they're the same,,,also the shotgun was fired a grand total of once and the other weapon wasn't even like the assault rifle, it was more like the battle rifle, which, once again, we only saw kill one enemy. Also I don't recall those weapons disintegrating their targets, so "slightly" really doesn't cut it. What's more, Chief's character is going to be explored more in Halo 4 as well, and even then you could argue that he had a bit of personality going on, he isn't bland simply because his character traits aren't smacking you in the face.TheCommanders said:
I don't think it will be a BAD game by any means, but to me, the story ended with Halo 3. I believe 343 will do a good job, but it just seems like Microsoft (as Yahtzee predicted in his H:R review) is just carrying the corpse over the coals for the cash. If it turns out to be spectacular, then I might get it, but I'm not feeling that anticipation that I did with the other games.
The story ended with Halo 3....The story ended with....am I the only one who saw the legendary ending to Halo 3? It ended on a MASSIVE cliffhanger!Dangit2019 said:
I completely agree that I haven't seen enough of the game. I'm just saying that so far, based on what I've seen, I'm not impressed. I'm open to the possibility of the end product blowing my mind, but not counting on it.erttheking said:
Technically, I played it on normal, so yes, I can pretend that that didn't exist.erttheking said:
Besides, that ending really was only there to shoehorn another possible sequel into the mix anyway.
You did see the enemies catching grenades in mid air and throwing back at you, deploying shields that lacked the exploitable nick that the Jackles had and teleporting didn't you? Call me crazy but I think it's safe to say that that's new to the series. It seems to me that 343 is trying to take the franchise in a new direction. That's the only point that I'm trying to make, and for me personally, that's all I need to believe that this game will be good.TheCommanders said:
luvd1 said:
There's a very good explanation for this. It's part of the backstory (and is already explained, but I won't spoil it) and will be explained in-game too.Zhukov said:
No need to knock something just because you don't understand it and don't bother to look for an answer.
In-story, several years at least have passed, plenty of time for any grudges to be played out
or any splinter elite groups to get pissy and try attacking humans
So what? Are you saying that they should've just ignored it? You may have done that but if the developers had done it too, it would've been a massive cop out to those who actually beat the game on legendary.Dangit2019 said:
Well there was one in Reach with an Elite, that tackles Six followed by Six punching it in the side of the head, all of this done from the first person perspective and without input from the player so it's been on the bandwagon for longer than this.TheCommanders said:
OT: Honestly, I was impressed seeing what they have to work with. It seems to me that Bungie really wanted Halo 3 to be the end (I mean the Coveneant were completely destroyed leaving only the Flood which would make H4 just another zombie game) Also, from what I saw it looked like the Elites and other Covenents were illusions created by the Forerunners who are bad guys now apparently. I agree on the weapons though, when is Halo going to invent new weapons instead of having multiple races versions of the same weapons
EDIT: Just realized, the gameplay trailer had me under the impression that MC and Cortana have still not made contact with any other humans yet Chief appears to be sporting some new armor and a new gun, where'd he get that stuff?
I guess we will. After all I can only prove the facts, I can't prove that the game will be good.TheCommanders said:
Taking a game engine that already exists and adding weapons, enemies, environments, blah blah blah blah blah...is like, 3months development time. Glad you enjoy paying a fresh $60 for what amounts to DLC, re-sold as a full game.erttheking said:
You like the game? Fine, more power to you, but the doesn't change the fact its the same game...what, 5 times now? You can blind yourself that new weapons and "characters" (lawl!!!!) are somehow revolutionary innovations in gaming, but they are not.
No, what I'm saying is that the setup for a sequel was unnecessary. The ending (anticlimactic in action as it was) tied up every storyline in a neat little bow. There were no questions resolving the Forerunners that couldn't have been solved in the expanded universe novels or whatnot, but they decided to have him crashing into it just to get one last ride. I'm not saying it was evil or anything (like what CoD is doing with its unnecessary sequels), what I'm saying is that the entire resolution that will come in Halo 4 is only resolving a setup made purely for economic gain.erttheking said:
Yes I have, I played Halo 1 and 2, ya know, when the series was not only fresh, but made by the people who INVENTED IT.Terminate421 said:
I really don't care what the plot of Halo 3 and Reach are, I'm pretty sure it goes something like: The covenant are attacking, shoot them till you win.
As I told someone else who quoted me...new weapons, vehicles, enemies, theater mode...whatever, 3 months development per game. The game engine never changed, so its just adding on to what already exists and changing things around. You take a game with a bunch of weapons, how hard is it to make a new weapon? Make a gun model, make gun model shoot something...wow, that takes a couple guys maybe a week? Please, its not impressive to ADD on to something that already exists, its easy as hell.
At least HL2 did something new when it came out, it had (at the time) revolutionary in game physics. What has Halo done to push the genre? I know the answer, its regenerating health, Halo was one of the first to do it...everyone copies it now of course...otherwise, its a generic shooter, always has been. Decent story I guess, good VO...but a generic shooter.
...Ugh, that is a very tired, overused and above all weak argument. Three months of development time? Uh, you do know that this game was announced a year ago right? And, call me crazy, I think that they were working on it beforehand. Existing game engine...uh, I'm guessing that you haven't played Halo 3 or Halo Reach because, let me tell you pal, they feel very VERY different from one another.Zenn3k said:
The same game...oh for christ's sake you're repeating yourself now, if you really think that Halo CE and Halo Reach are even remotely close, then I pretty much know that you haven't played them. I have, and they feel completely different, on account of them being completely different games. Also innovation (lawl, see, I can put them in here to act like a jerk too) is something that doesn't seem to be really understood that well by people like you. You seem to be under the impression that if a game doesn't change everything, it's "DLC re-sold as a full game" which is just stupid. The point of a sequel is to take a game and improve it while adding enough for it to stay fresh, but not enough so that it becomes a completely different game, which Halo has been doing a very good job of. Then again, you're probably one of those people who think that franchises are by definition bad.
You know how Call of Duty has those "indicators" for when you are aiming at an enemy to help out the methanol sipping retards who play that game? Well, come right on over said 343, and all they did was change it to appear when aiming at the head.
There were so many things wrong with the trailer. It pretty much confirmed my "not going to buy" stance on the game.
There were so many things wrong with the trailer. It pretty much confirmed my "not going to buy" stance on the game.
Halo 2 was technically unnecessary, the ending for Halo CE tied up the storyline in a neat little bow. There weren't any questions that couldn't be tied up elsewhere. Halo 4 got made for the same reason that Halo 2 did. People wanted more Halo. Of course they were doing it to make money too. After all, Halo was made to make money in the first place, all games where. If it wasn't it would've been given away.Dangit2019 said:
When developers change hands over a game, that doesn't mean its a bad thing. Halo 3 and Reach were made by Bungie too.Zenn3k said:
Wrong, you're wrong. All wrong. There is no words to describe how wrong you are. Your arguments are pretty much not valid at this point. Ask anyone, even fucking Yahtzee and they'll tell you that you are wrong.
Really? Maybe you should listen to ertheking more. In all honesty, do so because he and I agree on many things involving Halo, why? Because we are right.
3 months to develop something? You have no idea what you are talking about. At this point your arguments are not only invalid but just flat out wrong. Seriously, an opinion is one thing but saying it like that is just wrong.
Is that all it did? Because than it makes it sound rather generic about its shooting aspects. Its physics may be important for development now, but if thats all its riding on, then Halo should be revolutionary for everything else it brought to the table. Such as its own MAP EDITOR, THEATER MODE, and NEARLY LIMITLESS CUSTOMIZATION OF GAMETYPES all in one title (Halo 3).
Ah yes, the "Generic shooter with regenerating health"
This is also a wrong argument because you haven't played Reach. Reach brought in a new health system, shields but with health that DOESN'T FUCKING REGENERATE.
Regeneration is just a new thing, Halo brought new things to its own table, I'm not saying each Halo game is revolutionary, I have been saying that Halo brings new things each game that make it different enough from the last to warrant it as a worthy sequel.
Also, generic shooter?
Every Halo hater has used that exact words right there, and you know what? They've all been wrong. Name one other shooter that plays like Halo....Oh wait, there is NONE.
If you say "Well, Call of Duty has regenerating Health so that means it plays EXACTLY like Halo", thats just wrong. Watching an online video of the game does not make your opinion valid. Come back and argue with me about then when you have actually played it.
Mechanics can be the same in more than two games, does that make the either game generic? No. Halo has similar aspects to its previous games but adds enough things to make it a sequel which makes it its OWN NEW GAME.
I could pick up Halo: Combat Evolved and immediatly tell that it plays differently to
Your argument has been "Oh, every Halo game is the same, regenerating health with two weapons that is a massive borefest because I am right"
If you don't like Halo, fine. That's your opinion. But when you say stuff about Halo that is wrong. You're wrong and the opinion becomes invalid, simple as that.