I agree with this. The covenant were underdone and the flood were just a distraction from the covenant who, even in their medium-rare form, were much more interesting. I wanted religious fanatics who scared and awed me at their power. Like, you know, they're supposed to be.shadow skill said:[/li][li]I would also love to understand what the point of the headcra- errrr Flood was. Bungie failed to make the Covenant truly menacing, and failed miserably to touch on the religious aspect of things other than to make the Covenant leader an insane high priest, so they decided to throw in the Gravemind and Flood to make up for this, which is just plain sad in the grand scheme of things since all of these things could have worked if they had actually put forward some effort.[/li][/ul]
Your position in the gaming industry does not make your opinion any more or less valid.HeadExplodie said:Halo is the Linkin Park of video games. They took good parts from other games, watered them down to make them palpable to more people, then fed them to the public. I've worked in the gaming industry for quite a while. Halo is nothing compared to it's hype.
I have to agree with you there. I used the plasma rifle exclusively in Halo 1 and now I don't touch it at all.The Rogue Wolf said:And, oh yeah... what the HECK did they do to the Covenant weapon sounds in Halo 2? I mean, jeez. The plasma rifle went from sounding like a heat-spewing tool of death to sounding like one of those 1980's plastic toy kids' guns that had the light-up barrel.
Call Of Duty 4. The controls are far better. The story better. The online better. Level design is far superior.Ghandi 2 said:Your position in the gaming industry does not make your opinion any more or less valid.HeadExplodie said:Halo is the Linkin Park of video games. They took good parts from other games, watered them down to make them palpable to more people, then fed them to the public. I've worked in the gaming industry for quite a while. Halo is nothing compared to it's hype.
Please read my post, I want names. If Halo really is so mediocre, it shouldn't be difficult. I like Halo, but I am willing to accept that it borrowed many elements from other games and may in fact be somewhat mediocre. However, I have yet to see any proof beyond people simply stating that it is.
I wasn't claiming that you were claiming that...whatever. I was just bringing up a point that has been made before namely that it wasn't strictly a corridor shooter as if that was an innovation.Ghandi 2 said:I wasn't claiming open levels were a first to Halo.
I was sure that they were but I just checked and you're right. I could have sword BF1942 was pre-Halo but my timeline is all screwed up.Call of Duty and BF1942 were after Halo.
I've given my opinion on the quick draw grenade and it's more of a characteristic of the console than an innovation. It simply makes sense to give you a grenade button when you don't have number keys for cycling like a PC does. Also, even though it was helpful I liked having more range control instead of having to bounce grenades off things for them to fall short or jump for them to go far.I wasn't claiming aliens, superheroism, jumping, or grenades were a first either. But what about quick-draw grenades? Useful quick-draw melee?
The Needler is the alien equivalent of the SMG with the only thing setting it apart being homing ammo just like the alien sidearm is still a sidearm except you charge it up and it sort of homes in on the enemy... Glowing laser weapons and homing ammunition aren't new.Needler is not, and what do you expect? Are there any games that don't include those weapons? And Halo 1 at least had very big differences between human and alien equivalents (and nobody has the needler). PP was completely different, PR stunned, there was no alien shotgun or sniper, and the pistol was the best weapon in the game.
The difficulty system is there to make the game more difficult not make it easier for you to die. Making enemies stronger and you weaker is the most basic level. I much prefer removing health restoratives, making someone take more realistic damage, making the AI act more intelligently, giving the player less ammo to work with, etc.I thought that was how the difficulty system for most games was: make it much easier for you to die.
To the point where you can toss a never ending stream of destruction at whatever enemy you like? I much prefer the more classic ?use grenades in a pinch? setup instead of the ?OMG, I'm a souped up human and I like to throw explosives!? setup.Isn't the point of making grenades easy to use to use them?
The regenerating shield just made the game easy. I rarely felt any immersion in Halo because of that very aspect of the game. You just never felt like you were going to die throughout the game because if things got tough you could just hide behind a corner and wait. Sure it's innovative (I think) but I don't think it added anything to the game.And you completely neglected the shield, which is an integral aspect of Halo's gameplay.
Not to defend it but it can be said for call of duty aswel. Honestly In my option if you can get close enough to the other player to hit them (or if you sneak up on them) from a purely game play mechanics stand-point it should be a 1 hit kill.propertyofcobra said:Duke Nukem 3D had quick-draw Melee. It wasn't more powerful than a shotgun to the head of the monsters, no. But somehow in Halo, everybody has the most ridiculously powerful upper arms in the history of mankind. The Doom Space Marine and his Berserk pack look like a joke next to the insta-kill pistol whipping in Halo.
Oh yeah. I forgot all about the sheild. I would so buy the game just for that. (That was sarcasim for the people who didn't realise)Ghandi 2 said:And you completely neglected the shield, which is an integral aspect of Halo's gameplay.