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:
Halo 4 - Underwhelming?
- Thread starter TheCommanders
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
All this for a game where you put a + on a target and pull the trigger, basically EVERY shooter plays the same. HALO is barely different than Duke Nukem 3D. HALO is a generic shooter, thats all its really ever been, minus 1 innovation in the genre, which was regen health (which can be argued to be a negative at that).Terminate421 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.
Everything else is moot.
Also, reported for excess image use.
hmmm hopefully they will be turn-offable to keep people happy. I actually don't have any problem with the hit, grenade or weapon indicators. Just helps with making things stand out a bit more.Skin said:
Though i guess you could already tell these things by enemy blood, and the sounds the grenades made...
From the video it would seem they have brought back the total regen health from halo 3. I can't decide which system is better :/ I guess its only a small detail so oh well.Terminate421 said:
Oh no! I'm not letting you get away that easy! I'm not letting you get rid of me because of one little report.Zenn3k said:
I write these massive arguments and you just say "It's a generic shooter because I am right"
In all honesty for the past 3 pages of this shit you've dug yourself a trench you cannot fight your way out of. I got defensive over one game franchise that I love, not as a fanboy but as someone who likes something to where they will defend it.
Your arguments are wrong, play all of the games before you tell me I'm wrong and that the series is generic.
Your arguments are pretty much asking that all games should do what Fallout 3 did to Fallouts 1 and 2, make it even better by COMPLETELY changing the game. That doesn't happen with this and apparently it's generic. So before you make that argument, play the fucking games.
The point of images are to help get a point across, the way I see it, mission accomplished. All shooters are put x on target and pull the trigger. Technically true, but you know what else is technically true? All video games are is simply pushing buttons to change the colors of the screen, technically true. It's not really that great of an argument, but technically it's true. Oh, also in Halo you use gunships, tanks, jeeps grenades and swords. It's more than "put x on target" a gross oversimplification if I ever saw one. In that case, Arkum asylum is just running around beating up thugs, Red Dead Redemption is just riding around shooting people in the face, RTSs are only about blowing up everything and waiting patiently for it and Portal is just moving from point a to point b. See, I can oversimplify things too. 1 innovation? Uh, what about the newZenn3k said:All this for a game where you put a + on a target and pull the trigger, basically EVERY shooter plays the same. HALO is barely different than Duke Nukem 3D. HALO is a generic shooter, thats all its really ever been, minus 1 innovation in the genre, which was regen health (which can be argued to be a negative at that).Terminate421 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.
Everything else is moot.
Also, reported for excess image use.
1. weapons
2. enemies
3. in game vehicles (seriously, name a game that has a campaign that lets you seamlessly switch from first person shooting to vehicles so well, I doubt you'll come up with many)
4. forge mode
5. custom games
6. theater mode
7. space combat
8. armor abilities
9. firefight
10. Spartan Ops
11. Invasion game mode
Also, I'm really getting the impression that you actually haven't played Halo 3 and Reach, making your rather unqualified to criticize a series on account of not being informed to what you are debating. Seriously I'm really getting the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about.
Everything else is moot= I don't want to defend my position but I want to make it look like I outsmarted you without actually doing anything.
Zenn3k said:
Sorry... But what..? He used TWO IMAGEs. Excess image use would be placing more then five or some number, pretty sure it's not two. But even if you consider his other posts, it's still not excessive. Hell some topics have become just people posting pictures of a old spider man cartoon with various captions.
Terminate, I think this man be trolling.