Oh I was really refering to the practical weapons you have to constantly carry around/deal with like the storm/assault rifle etc, but yeah the rocket launcher was really the only exception.doggie015 said:At least Halo isn't trying to be the next CoD knockoff!I beg to differ. I can remember from Halo 2 that the fuel rod gun sucks HARD compared to the human equivalent: A dual-barreled rocket launcher with set-and-forget lock-on and target tracking plus it does more damage when it hits.Carlos Storm said:I've found on the hardest difficulty human guns aren't worth carrying around for longer than it takes to find their alien equivalent. A nice contrast to the BR being the best gun around on easy...Waaghpowa said:That's something about Halo that's always perplexed me, the alien weapons. They all look so ridiculously like toys. When you envision alien weapons, do you think nerf guns with glow sticks on them? I don't. Also, why is it in every Halo game, human weapons always seem to be the best guns, or is that just me?
If you're not at all interested in what's happening, action can be really, really dull. I felt that way while playing various games (most recently Halo: Reach, my attempt to give the Halo franchise another go). Wading through hordes of baddies becomes tedious when your reward is a cutscene you find boring.sammysoso said:Not sure how you feel bored though, the game moves at a pretty brisk pace.
I've had friends drag me into multi-player for various games I didn't enjoy playing single player... and I've yet to have it work out, especially for a shooter where the enjoyment of using weapons is a big thing. If I don't enjoy shooting a shotgun in single player, then there's fuck-all chance of me enjoying shooting the same shotgun in multi-player.YodaUnleashed said:Then again, he's rarely interested in the multiplayer aspects of any game which whilst understandable when multiplayer has been poorly tacked on as a way to tick a box, when it's as integral to the overall game and as large an aspect of it like it is in Halo, then its clear Yahtzee doesn't care too much for 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts' approach and philosophy. So as entertaining as Yahtzee is and as valid and justified as many of his criticisms are, at a fundamental level, I disagree with his reviewing approach and prefer a review that deals with the whole thing, not just one aspect of it.
That's... actually a bad way to put it. At a young age, tolerance for bad stuff is really low, so one can fall in love with pretty much anything. I doubt I would remember He-Man so fondly if I hadn't watched it at a young age. Nostalgia rarely works based on how good something was, but more on what that particular product reminds you of your childhood.Thomas Barnsley said:i think you really need to have started halo at a young age to fully appreciate it.
Nah they're usually around 6 to 8 hours, so 10 is them being...generous, I suppose.Balkan said:My favourite ZPs are when he hates the game like when he reviewed wolfenstein or darksiders .Marik Bentusi said:With a game like Halo 4 I'd say there's a high chance it was simply expected of him - by fans or the Escapist. It's not like those times where he does a retro review or two indie titles that drew his eyes.Balkan said:Another example of Yahtzee neither hateing nor liking a game . The result is always a boring review, sorry dude .You should have reviewed Epic Mickey 2 or something.
ha....noThomas Barnsley said:i think you really need to have started halo at a young age to fully appreciate it. i think Yahtzee just doesn't understand it for that reason, starting off in halo 3. 1 and 2 were the best anyway.
the thing i personally disliked about halo 4 was the lack of signature halo music. thats what made the series for me. my favourite cut-scene was when it played some of the original music.
Yes, there are. Just as there are video games and books for Star Wars, books and comics for Mass Effect, ect.wombat_of_war said:first of all . There are halo books?
No, you don't. Those books are not that important and deliver addional background content - and sometimes even conflict with the events of the game. Usually the case if the books were written before the games covered these events. But it is simply said that for canon continuity, it is: new games > old games > new non-game > old non-game. Best example might be "The Fall of Reach", which is basically "Halo: Reach - the book", which came out a few years before "Halo: Reach".wombat_of_war said:secondly it is bad writing that people have to pretty much read the books to get what the hell is going on
Wow, excuse me for not following the release dates for game I don't give a shit about on a continent I don't live .Also my "Has watched every ZP" badge should have turned you down on recomending me an year old ZP . You are blaming me for not knowing all the facts while talking out of your ass .mjc0961 said:Yes, he should review a game that at most came out 3 days ago (Wii U) or at least came out 1 day ago (every other system).Balkan said:Another example of Yahtzee neither hateing nor liking a game . The result is always a boring review, sorry dude .You should have reviewed Epic Mickey 2 or something.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/3540-Hunted-The-Demons-Forge
Watch the first minute, you might learn something.