Post by: Artimus on December 08, 2006, 06:44:19 AM
Personally I thought the HALO trailer was annoying because the kids are very very badly tied into it. It's a very lame attempt. There is no character to Master Chief (there's personality, though) and the HALO plot is merely an excuse to travel from room/locale to room/locale killing the enemies in each room/locale before moving on. The stories of the games do not matter (as proven by every reviewing saying the single player sucks and then proceeding to give it a 10 for multiplayer alone). Perhaps HALO 3 will change this, but I thought the kids were just silly. The rest of the trailer, however, was quite nice and I thought it worked as a trailer. So overall I didn't mind it. (the John Lennon "Instant Karma" remix really works though, lol)
The GOW thing was one of the most idiotic trailers I have ever seen (if not the most). Mad World did not fit that footage IN ANY WAY. The fact that people actually liked that trailer and went insane over it really angers me. It means we have to endure more trailers like it. It was such an exercise in vanity for the game creators, like someone would create at home mixing footage of a game they like. Basically they watched Donnie Darko, loved the song, and were all "OMG tiz song rulz, letz makez uz a trailerz wiz it and drinkz beerz and havez sexz...hahahaha...wevz neverz had sexz but wez coolz." And we get this absurd trailer which all the morons of the MS fanbase (sorry, but in this case it applies) love because they're shocked to hear music that isn't on the radio. Broad and totally unfair generalization, but the trailer annoys me to no end.
In short, HALO 3 trailer is just poorly executed, otherwise fine. But the GOW trailer is going to doom us to a generation of similar trailers that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the game. Not to mention the thousands of fan made trailers for every game conceivable that will be done using that song.
Post by: hudsonhawk on December 08, 2006, 06:54:18 AM
And the stories of the Halo games don't matter? Maybe you didn't like the stories, that's one thing, but the story in the Halo games is significantly more elaborate and well-developed than the majority of console shooters out there. I agree the Master Chief character is underdeveloped, but the worlds themselves are imaginative and well thought through. As an Ian M. Banks fan I feel like they're the closest thing to a game of the Culture novels I'll ever get to play.
I took the kids as being a statement that they're going to invest more into developing the Master Chief character this time around.
The GoW trailer was inspired, I thought. Expressive, sets a tone, draws your attention to the image through the lack of non-music audio. I can see why someone might not have liked it, but I think that your patronizing vitriol is unmerited.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 08, 2006, 07:14:31 AM
I've noticed a lot of ads lately have little CG scenes that have nothing to do with the game and look enough like game footage that you can't really tell what's what. I'll take a wild guess that GOW doesn't have those camera angles in the game. I think that's an intentional deception. They want people to think that's what the game is like when it isn't. It's no different than the Final Fantasy VII ad that was nothing but FMV.
A good trailer or ad should just hit you with game footage. A good game should look appealing enough in motion to attract your attention. There's nothing wrong with some obvious stuff that isn't in game if it makes sense. WiiSports for example should also show people playing to demonstrate the concept. But they shouldn't be giving us little cut scenes not in the final game. That's not the real game and they're trying to trick us into buying a game that isn't what we think it is.
Can you imagine if movie trailers and ads routinely had footage that wasn't from the movie but looked like it was? I would consider that false advertising (Twister did have that with a shot of a tractor wheel flying into a windshield that was not in the movie at all).
Post by: Kairon on December 08, 2006, 07:15:23 AM
Besides, what makes this case so different from Nintendo's Zelda 2005 trailer using music ripped right from my Conan the Barbarian soundtrack?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: capamerica on December 08, 2006, 07:15:47 AM
I think its all going to be based around what game the trailer is for. I couldn't see Mario or Sonic with a serious trailer But a Metroid or Zelda trailer that was serious would be REALLY cool!
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 08, 2006, 07:27:22 AM
This Zelda game's story is probably the strongest Zelda story of any in the series, yet I would have a hard time describing what is going on in the game, story wise.
However, this is still one of the best Zelda experiences I have played, if not the best. Because the GAMEPLAY is awesome.
I have never played a game where I thought wow this story and these characters are amazing, and I am glad I played the game so that I could experience this level of story telling. That RARELY happens. And that is OK. Game do not have to have great stories...they have to have great experiences.
To me I didn't like the Halo series. I had friends that were telling the story and the world and universe seemed interesting, but the game was horrible.
And the comment that a cool imaginative world makes a great story is not true. Here is an example: Lord of the Rings. That book and movie has one of the most imaginative and wonderful worlds in literature, but the story is not as strong or as good as people make it out.
Post by: hudsonhawk on December 08, 2006, 07:42:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
And the comment that a cool imaginative world makes a great story is not true. Here is an example: Lord of the Rings. That book and movie has one of the most imaginative and wonderful worlds in literature, but the story is not as strong or as good as people make it out.
Crafting a cool imaginative world is part of a very important part of telling a story. It can tell your story for you implicitly. Look at the crumbling ruins of Metroid Prime or Gears of War - there's no need to get caught up in exhaustively explaining the history of what happened there, the image tells the story by itself.
It sounds like what you're complaining about is plot. LotR has a great, elaborate story but the books don't have a very interesting plot; the story isn't told in an interesting way.
Worlds don't make a great story but they're a huge part of telling one.
Post by: Kairon on December 08, 2006, 07:52:40 AM
However, I'm still trying to sort out in my mind the existence of two snubfighters nicknamed "V-Wings" in the Star Wars universe. One was a clone-wars era light fighter, from my understanding, and the other was an atmosphere-only scramjet enabled shieldless fighter whose most prominent role was the battle of Calamari.
BTW, did you know that the Warren and Mon Calamari live on the same Planet?
... As you can see, its little things like this that REALLY fill seats in Star Wars movies!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on December 08, 2006, 08:01:02 AM
Lousy punk kids. When I was a teen we didn't listen to depressing music and watch anime. We listened to grunge and watched Dragon Ball Z... oh f*ck. Nevermind.
Post by: Smoke39 on December 08, 2006, 08:02:25 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 08, 2006, 08:02:45 AM
[nerd chick] "OMG YOU SPEAK KLINGON?!"
[nerd dude] "OMG YOU UNDERSTAND KLINGON!"
Post by: Caliban on December 08, 2006, 08:11:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Whether you like it or not, the quickest way to a teenager's heart is emo music paired with cut together 'cool' scenes from random anime/sci-fi/cult hit."
Lousy punk kids. When I was a teen we didn't listen to depressing music and watch anime. We listened to grunge and watched Dragon Ball Z... oh f*ck. Nevermind.
My thoughts exactly, Nirvana and DragonBall hahahaha.
Post by: Artimus on December 08, 2006, 09:40:01 AM
Post by: Amodaus1 on December 08, 2006, 11:26:39 AM
Oh, and deep emo music with scenes that are CLICHE but repackaged in a deeply "emotional" way are totally in.... Grunge was so much better, at least it didn't produce pansies, just drug addicts.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 08, 2006, 11:52:12 AM
Agreed. Being depressed because of your serious heroin addiction has a little more credibility than being depressed because your parents don't understand you or whatever sissy high school crap emo bands sing about.
I question why Halo 3 even needs much of an ad. Seriously they could just say "Halo 3 for the Xbox 360. Coming soon." and that would sell it. Halo's status as a major franchise is such that the name recognition alone is going to sell it. If it undersells it will be because the hype is gone and no ad will ever fix that. I don't think anyone who didn't think Halo was cool already would suddenly be convinced because of an ad.
Post by: Smoke39 on December 08, 2006, 12:01:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Amodaus1
there were only 3 revolutionary FPS's and they were DOOM, DUKE NUKEM 3D, and HALF-LIFE.
Uhm, Deus Ex? Or perhaps the System Shock games, but I haven't played either enough to know how much DX borrows from them.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 08, 2006, 12:14:55 PM
Post by: UncleBob on December 08, 2006, 12:56:26 PM
Wolf3D is still one of my favorite games...
Post by: SixthAngel on December 08, 2006, 12:56:28 PM
I would count Halo as a revolutionary fps. It was one of the first to include vehicles except it took forever to come out so others came first, it uses a new approach to weapons where they are all equally good in different situations/ways (limiting you to two makes it important to choose the right weapons), has grenades become a weapon that is actually useful and most importantly it introduced and pioneered the concept of rechargable life. This is probably the most copied feature in fps today and seems to be quickly becoming the standard. I forgot to mention co-op in the single player mode, I can't remember another fps doing this and if they did, it certainly wasn't implemented close to as well.
Post by: Amodaus1 on December 08, 2006, 01:06:28 PM
I'll give halo one thing it pioneered in: It dumbed down FPS's even further to make them more accesible to the masses. That is why it's so popular. With all mass appeal comes simplicity. Halo did introduce recharable health. Thats really damn simple. Anyone can learn to just lie low and get health back. Is it balanced, not really. Also i find that Halo has a humoungous health bar, it takes 2 full clips from the SMG (dual wielding) to kill someone, and that is massive. 3rd person vehicle mode that gives you greater periferal vision, awesome. Super slow movement, so no one can get away or hide for cover in a fire fight, awesome. A melee botton so you don't have to change weapons to say a knife, so that way if you miss your melee attack you can keep on shooting, or if you run out of bullets, just melee for the kill, all of this with no concequences because you don't need to account for your ammo in your clip, or worry about weapon change, exellent. Auto-lock and forget anti-vehcile rocket, that fly through walls sometimes to hit their target, that is also great against infantry cause the splash dmg is so HUGE you just jump and shoot the ground, spectacular. Floaty jumps like we're kirby, cool. Halo 1 was also notorious for gernade spam(massive splash + insta-kill=lame), and an overpowered pistol (which is acctually do to the run speed not ther pistol itself, but thats how i feel, and most casual players didn't know this so i'll ignore it) but i won't go into those. Tracers on sniper rifles, cool, so we can find those bad boy snipers. How many games require tracers on any of their sniper rifles? I can't think of any, but it sure does make the game simpler.
Halo = even simpler fps then normal standards. And it surprises me that no one has been able to copy their succsess. If not copy it, just clone it shamefully, theres a truckload of money to be made by this casual type of FPS.
Rainbow six, i don't know if it created the whole squad based FPS, i'm unsure, but if it did then maybe it could count as revolutionary. Deus ex i have never played, nor do i know anyone who has, so i really can't credit it to anything, when did it come out and what did it do different? And i think DOOM came before wolfenstien, i gotta check that out.
Edit: Yup, your right, wolfenstien came out 1 year ahead. So i'd replace doom with wolfenstien on that list.
Post by: SixthAngel on December 08, 2006, 01:28:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Amodaus1
Everything halo did was done before, i'm sure vechiles existed in other FPS's before halo, and battlefield 1942 did vehicles way better.
Either you never played Halo or you just ignored my entire post except the first part about vehicles. (By the way I never liked the vehicle controls in battlefield outside of the bombing planes. Everything was done decently but the flaws were overlooked by the insane vehicle variety.) If you have an example of someone beating Halo to the punch on things like the often copied (Gears of War, Red Steel, Call of Duty) rechargable life post it. Don't just say it has probably been done before and assume it is true.
Post by: Amodaus1 on December 08, 2006, 01:46:19 PM
Thats a name of an FPS that had vehicles in multiplayer and came out before Halo. I assumed it had been done, because its a simple concept, i'm sure game developers picked up on. I'm sure there are more examples, but that is just one. And i did address that halo did innovate rechargable health (i edited my post, but ended up ranting), but even that i do not know for sure
Also i wouldn't go and say halo pioneered different but equally useful weapons. Halo 1 = pistol all day everyday. If your good at the game YOU WILL know that fact (i did play alot of halo 1, and played in tornaments, so i'll be happy to show you my pistoling). Halo 2 i didn't spend much time on because i felt the series did not progress. As i remember what devestated in halo 2 (before the patch, i never played witht he patch) was once again the pistol, but comboed with the plasma pistol. The tracking on the plasma was absolutely fundametally broken, as it could sift around coners, and one pistol shot to the head with no shields was death. And of course without the scope on the pistol you had to carry a sniper rifle for larger maps, but not in the ways you think you would use it, it's much easier with practice, but using the halo sniper as a shot gun will get you way more kills and do it better then acctual sniping.
Post by: oohhboy on December 08, 2006, 02:17:58 PM
Rechargable health existed before halo, but it was always in a form of a power up or upgrade ala Deus Ex.
But I Believe for most part that rechargable health in most games mearly hides inadequite level/gameplay design. GE/PD one of the best FPS on consoles had no health pickup what so ever outside of shield pickup and thoses were limited. But the level design was formed around the fact that you only had so much health, therefore every level was a self contained and nothing conneted them out side of the plot.
Recharging health of halo was created out of need to accomidate the large levels within the standard FPS formula. The only other option had had was to have health pickups. That would have turned Halo completely into a standard FPS but with large levels. Unlike GE/PD before it because of the large levels objectives got striped and it boiled down to getting from point A - B because the plot device said so.
Back to topic. I don't mind the ad considering I am pretty tolerant, but I don't like how they have spammed that Ad all to hell. I mean seriously. How many times do I have to watch it during an hour. Hell it somethimes appears twice during one Ad break.
edited for prettyness
Post by: Smoke39 on December 08, 2006, 05:22:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Amodaus1
Deus ex i have never played, nor do i know anyone who has, so i really can't credit it to anything, when did it come out and what did it do different?
It was an FPS/RPG hybrid with a deep story and an extremely detailed world. Not to mention it was also very open-ended. It came out in 1999 or 2000.
As for co-op, Doom had co-op. Duke 3D had co-op. Unreal had co-op. Co-op used to be a staple in FPSs, then it just kinda disappeared.
Post by: Arbok on December 08, 2006, 05:44:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39
It was an FPS/RPG hybrid with a deep story and an extremely detailed world. Not to mention it was also very open-ended. It came out in 1999 or 2000.
It was extremely succesful as well, and was released for both the PS2 and PC/Mac. However, its sequel, which was released on the PC and Xbox, was not...
Post by: Smoke39 on December 08, 2006, 05:49:33 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 09, 2006, 02:16:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawkQuote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
And the comment that a cool imaginative world makes a great story is not true. Here is an example: Lord of the Rings. That book and movie has one of the most imaginative and wonderful worlds in literature, but the story is not as strong or as good as people make it out.
Crafting a cool imaginative world is part of a very important part of telling a story. It can tell your story for you implicitly. Look at the crumbling ruins of Metroid Prime or Gears of War - there's no need to get caught up in exhaustively explaining the history of what happened there, the image tells the story by itself.
It sounds like what you're complaining about is plot. LotR has a great, elaborate story but the books don't have a very interesting plot; the story isn't told in an interesting way.
Worlds don't make a great story but they're a huge part of telling one.
Thanks for explaining what I meant so much better. Their is a difference between plot and story.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 09, 2006, 02:28:11 AM
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on December 09, 2006, 02:43:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
I think it is pretty sad when the most innovative feature of the Halo series is rechargeable health, which I have to agree is more of a mask for poor level and enemy design. Halo is still 99% generic doing stuff that had already been outdated by PC games of the time. In regards to the Game Trailers, I've always had problems with trailers that show CGI rendered scenes instead of gameplay footage.
The main reason Halo is doing so well isn't innovation, it's the most accessible multiplayer FPS on the consoles. If innovation = sales, Sony would be dead already.
Anyway, The commercials were nothing special. I don't see what the big deal is. Games trying to look serious tend to have serious-looking commercials.
Post by: SixthAngel on December 09, 2006, 04:42:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Amodaus1
Starsiege: Tribes
Also i wouldn't go and say halo pioneered different but equally useful weapons. Halo 1 = pistol all day everyday. If your good at the game YOU WILL know that fact (i did play alot of halo 1, and played in tornaments, so i'll be happy to show you my pistoling).
Its called a flaw in a rushed game. The weapon was never meant to be overpowered but the first game was pushed out the door quickly. For some reason stupid fans find this unbalance to be a good part of the game instead of the problem it really is and have pushed Bungie to make the br a starting weapon in Halo 2. The pistol was never the overpowering weapon in Halo 2. It has always been the battlerifle even when it first came out. They tried to fix the pistol problems with the br but there is still work to do.
Rechargable life is not a mask for bad design. The levels are based around the fact that getting to cover will recharge your health. The rechargable health allows for larger battles with more accurate enemies because it is possible to be shot more. The health allows the player to take brief risks without being punished too much and it also keeps the player from tanking through enemies. The increasing difficulties also make the game very enjoyable for replay. I play very very few games more then once but the higher difficulty settings made me play through this game multiple times. Add in a friend for co-op and it gets even more fun. Single player co-op is another advantage this game has over many others. I don't know why companies stopped doing co-op games when they entered 3d but it is time they brought it back.
I think it is funny how everyone here points the metareview sites when someone gives Zelda a bad score and yet ignores it when a game like this comes around where they are the minority that disagrees. Some of you have to be able to admit that being a Nintendo fan clouds your judgement a bit, because it does, or at least admit that perhaps this type of game isn't your cup of tea.
Post by: Smoke39 on December 09, 2006, 06:23:25 AM
Post by: mantidor on December 09, 2006, 07:04:31 AM
And I couldn't believe that the commercial of GoW was using the mad world song when I searched for it in youtube, I thought it was some sort of music fan video, specially because I've seen that song used in many anime music videos made by fans, it really doesn't fit at all with what I thought about the game.
I don't mind serious commercials but only if they make sense and fit the game, in that point of view OoT and MM commercials were perfect, these commercials of these two games really don't make much sense, game-wise.
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Whether you like it or not, the quickest way to a teenager's heart is emo music paired with cut together 'cool' scenes from random anime/sci-fi/cult hit."
Lousy punk kids. When I was a teen we didn't listen to depressing music and watch anime. We listened to grunge and watched Dragon Ball Z... oh f*ck. Nevermind.
LOL I have to sig this.
Post by: Amodaus1 on December 09, 2006, 07:58:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: SixthAngelQuote
Originally posted by: Amodaus1
Starsiege: Tribes
Also i wouldn't go and say halo pioneered different but equally useful weapons. Halo 1 = pistol all day everyday. If your good at the game YOU WILL know that fact (i did play alot of halo 1, and played in tornaments, so i'll be happy to show you my pistoling).
Its called a flaw in a rushed game. The weapon was never meant to be overpowered but the first game was pushed out the door quickly. For some reason stupid fans find this unbalance to be a good part of the game instead of the problem it really is and have pushed Bungie to make the br a starting weapon in Halo 2. The pistol was never the overpowering weapon in Halo 2. It has always been the battlerifle even when it first came out. They tried to fix the pistol problems with the br but there is still work to do.
Rechargable life is not a mask for bad design. The levels are based around the fact that getting to cover will recharge your health. The rechargable health allows for larger battles with more accurate enemies because it is possible to be shot more. The health allows the player to take brief risks without being punished too much and it also keeps the player from tanking through enemies. The increasing difficulties also make the game very enjoyable for replay. I play very very few games more then once but the higher difficulty settings made me play through this game multiple times. Add in a friend for co-op and it gets even more fun. Single player co-op is another advantage this game has over many others. I don't know why companies stopped doing co-op games when they entered 3d but it is time they brought it back.
I think it is funny how everyone here points the metareview sites when someone gives Zelda a bad score and yet ignores it when a game like this comes around where they are the minority that disagrees. Some of you have to be able to admit that being a Nintendo fan clouds your judgement a bit, because it does, or at least admit that perhaps this type of game isn't your cup of tea.
To put it simply, WOW. I LOLed so hard when i read the word battle rifle, in the same context of overpowered.
I'm going to take it that your not a hard core tournement player. I'm going to take it that your not in a clan. I'm going to take it that you never traveled to different campuses to participate in different college tournaments for the game. But as someone who has... please, when you state something make sure you know what your talking about. The battle rifle is not broken, it is not overpowered, what it is is barely used.
Dual wielding (pre-patch, i never played 1.1 as i walked away from the game forever after 5 months of play) is superior in every way.
WOW, if you didn't know the plasma pistol and magnum or SMG magnum comos were the strongest in the game, then i guess you don't play competitively enough. And if you can't shotty sniper either, then that may explain your use of the inferior battle rifle, but whatever.
Halo 1 had rechargeable shields by the way, it still had the same old grab the health kit system for gaining health back (you still had a health bar in that game) Which served a greater purpose, it made a difference between the plasma weapons and the human weapons (at least in single player, in multiplayer pistols rules all)
Rechargable health DOES NOT allow for larger battles, it is quite the opposite, as you are force to track down and finish off your opponent, which is not hard due to the UBER slow move speed, something i was drastically hoping that they fixed.
Increasing difficulty is nothing new. HEY lets had more health and dmg to the enemies... Wow, not lets add more enemeies, or lets improve the AI? More dmg and health does not = more difficulty it ='s more repetaiveness
And for crying out loud PD had co-op, so did other games.
Read this it'll educate you on how to expliot halo
http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=2&cId=3143147
It doesn't mention the shoty sniper which can only be fixed by reciol but then again i doubt the author was a pro anyway. It also doesn't mention how they removed the angle from throwing stickies so its a straight throw now, which made it much easier to tag people.
And if you think halo 1 was rushed, why aren;t you, with THE REST OF US, flaming pissed at how RUSHED halo 2 was. Are you totally out of the loop? Everyone knows they rushed halo 2 (coined Halo 1.5 on-line)
They couldn't even get hit boxes right ---> http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/halo2/video_player.html?id=cHMylzCr5bwKujM
I'm not here to put down your like for the game. You can like it, i love halo 1, i was destroyed by halo 2 being non-progressive and even more of a MAINSTREAM SHOOTER (requiring less skill). And i don't know if it pioneered health regain, but untill someone tells me otherwise, i'll agree with you there. However, you were dead wrong saying it introduced vehicles, and it most certainly did not start the co-op trend. And plz, the battle rifle in 1.00 was not overpowered, the magnum / plasma pistol and sniper rifle still reigned supreme (and whoring the rocket launcher while in a tank/banshee/or ghost that pwns the noobs so hard it gets stale in 10 minutes, but raises your rank so high and gets your clan more status on live).
Post by: IceCold on December 09, 2006, 09:50:19 AM
QuoteAnd I think that your superfluous verbiage is unmerited
I can see why someone might not have liked it, but I think that your patronizing vitriol is unmerited.
Post by: Amodaus1 on December 09, 2006, 10:29:00 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 09, 2006, 12:30:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: SixthAngelQuote
Originally posted by: Amodaus1
I think it is funny how everyone here points the metareview sites when someone gives Zelda a bad score and yet ignores it when a game like this comes around where they are the minority that disagrees. Some of you have to be able to admit that being a Nintendo fan clouds your judgement a bit, because it does, or at least admit that perhaps this type of game isn't your cup of tea.
Haha, well like was stated earlier uninspired toned down FPSs are not my cup of tea to be sure. I'm sorry though but the "Majority" liking a game doesn't mean anything, especially since you could argue with Halo that the people who really love Halo and praise it are closed off to PC FPS games which are far superior in every way. The Halo games have a forumulaic story mode (shoot lots of bad guys), and a multiplayer mode that is quite inferior to the quality FPS games on the PC. Zelda TP has more innovation and uniqueness in its little finger than Halo will ever have, and it is quite ridiculous that anyone would rank them on a similar level when it comes to polish, game design, and innovation.
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on December 09, 2006, 03:03:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolutionQuote
Originally posted by: SixthAngelQuote
Originally posted by: Amodaus1
I think it is funny how everyone here points the metareview sites when someone gives Zelda a bad score and yet ignores it when a game like this comes around where they are the minority that disagrees. Some of you have to be able to admit that being a Nintendo fan clouds your judgement a bit, because it does, or at least admit that perhaps this type of game isn't your cup of tea.
Haha, well like was stated earlier uninspired toned down FPSs are not my cup of tea to be sure. I'm sorry though but the "Majority" liking a game doesn't mean anything, especially since you could argue with Halo that the people who really love Halo and praise it are closed off to PC FPS games which are far superior in every way. The Halo games have a forumulaic story mode (shoot lots of bad guys), and a multiplayer mode that is quite inferior to the quality FPS games on the PC. Zelda TP has more innovation and uniqueness in its little finger than Halo will ever have, and it is quite ridiculous that anyone would rank them on a similar level when it comes to polish, game design, and innovation.
While I agree that PC shooters tend to be better, Halo is a lot easier to jump into, and less technical people find consoles easier to use, and you can get more of your buddies on. There's nothing like getting 8 guys together on Lockout for a King of the Hill with only Plasma Pistols and no shields.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 09, 2006, 04:15:43 PM
Post by: Nick DiMola on December 09, 2006, 05:29:34 PM
As far as the topic goes, I hate these serious game trailers. Please show off the actual gameplay. There are ways of doing this that don't look cheesy and still can evoke emotion and interest. Dubbing a Gears of War trailer with Mad World isn't deep, it's retarded.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 09, 2006, 06:23:18 PM
Post by: Nick DiMola on December 09, 2006, 08:34:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
Ouch Mr. Jack that is alot harsher than I was with the game lol. But I definately agree, I don't think it has anything to do with being a Nintendo fan or not, because I play all systems. It is pretty sad when it seems Goldeneye has been level design in the single player than Halo 1 or 2 could ever dream of. Halo's single player is about as generic as you can get, basically boiling down to shooting lots of bad guys and ducking out of the way to recharge your health.
I totally agree here. I maybe a Nintendo fan, but I own and play pretty much every console (ever made). I have played more FPSs than I can count and I just can't stand Halo. I think it is the Halo fanboys and the press that spaz over it that drive me crazy and cause a deeper hatred for the game than necessary. The game just isn't that good. It's not the worst either, it is just really overrated. There is no style, no art direction and it is bland as hell. Nowadays there is no excuse for poor artistic direction in a supposed A++ game.
As you can see talking about Halo gets me way too worked up. I think I'll stop now and try and restrain from wrecking on the game more. If you like the game, great, just don't try and convince me it is god's gift to man, because you have no case.
Post by: Kairon on December 09, 2006, 08:37:38 PM
... But then again, that's VERY elitist/hardcore gamer-esque of us to say now, isn't it?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 09, 2006, 09:19:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I really don't believe that Halo owes its success to anything more than being the simple man's FPS.
... But then again, that's VERY elitist/hardcore gamer-esque of us to say now, isn't it?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Well I think Halo's popularity is because of a few things:
1. It got hyped to heck before it came out
2. An image was set in gamers minds that it was the "cool" thing to play
3. The game is solid, maybe not that good but solid even if it has a generic story mode, the multiplayer can be fun
4. Console FPSs have been pretty sad to say the least except for a few. So Halo is more like a king in the midst of a dung heap
5. Microsoft has spent and is spending tons of money to push it!
Post by: UniversalJuan on December 10, 2006, 01:26:51 AM
Viva la exclusive Wii TimeSplitters!
Post by: Amodaus1 on December 10, 2006, 02:50:34 AM
I was hoping for alot from halo 2, i mean in interviews bungie said ALL this great stuff you could do, like hang on ledges and shoot people, or shoot from coners without leaving cover, and the infamous COMBOS with melee.... what did they deliver, nothing. Thus me exiting the game, i shall never return.
There is alot better then halo, if you don't agree then you are a fanboy, or you are not that good at FPS's. The latter is forgivable. But seriously, PD must have been the last good console shooter that had straight up FPS multiplayer.
Post by: hudsonhawk on December 10, 2006, 03:05:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
... But then again, that's VERY elitist/hardcore gamer-esque of us to say now, isn't it?
Amen to that.
I can understand why people might not like Halo - whatever, not every game is for everyone - but I've never understood why the people who don't like it are so hauty and patronizing to those who do like it. Calling it the simple man's FPS, insisting that the people who like it are just ignorant or are suckers for the hype, blaming the media for its success - it's a bunch of elitist garbage.
That people say things like this with a straight face:
Quote
I refuse to give Halo any credit, it is in my opinion one of the biggest causes in the decline of gaming quality and innovation in the gaming industry for the "hip" gamer.
Halo is causing the decline of gaming now!? Because dumb gamers who don't like the same games you do are buying it? Christ man, get over it. If someone liking a game you don't fills you with this much anger you have issues that aren't going to be resolved in this thread.
Me? I like Halo. And before you accuse me of having bad taste or being an ignorant gamers or whatever, know that I've been playing first person games since Tunnel Runner on the Atari 2600. I've played every single important FPS of the last 15 years.
As for whether it was innovative or not, I find that discussion pretty irrelevant. It does innovate in a lot of key ways (virtual couches and a quickmatch playlist system that works and stays interesting) but I don't really think that's an important debate. I really think that the importance of innovation has become a little overstated. Yes, I love a unique and innovative game. But sometimes I like a solid entry into a genre that works within the rules of that genre and does everything right.
Frankly I think a lot of gamers talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to innovation. They'll criticise games they don't like for their lack of innovation but then turn around and go back to playing the Castlevania 2d games or Mario Kart. And why not? They're both great, great games that have a solid design and perfect execution. They're so fun we don't mind that their design hasn't changed in 10 years.
Innovation isn't a yardstick of quality, it's just something that can set a game apart from it's peers. I'm not so jaded and bored with gaming that I think every game has to be something completely new to me.
Post by: Amodaus1 on December 10, 2006, 03:26:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawkQuote
Originally posted by: Kairon
... But then again, that's VERY elitist/hardcore gamer-esque of us to say now, isn't it?
Amen to that.
I can understand why people might not like Halo - whatever, not every game is for everyone - but I've never understood why the people who don't like it are so hauty and patronizing to those who do like it. Calling it the simple man's FPS, insisting that the people who like it are just ignorant or are suckers for the hype, blaming the media for its success - it's a bunch of elitist garbage.
That people say things like this with a straight face:Quote
I refuse to give Halo any credit, it is in my opinion one of the biggest causes in the decline of gaming quality and innovation in the gaming industry for the "hip" gamer.
Halo is causing the decline of gaming now!? Because dumb gamers who don't like the same games you do are buying it? Christ man, get over it. If someone liking a game you don't fills you with this much anger you have issues that aren't going to be resolved in this thread.
Me? I like Halo. And before you accuse me of having bad taste or being an ignorant gamers or whatever, know that I've been playing first person games since Tunnel Runner on the Atari 2600. I've played every single important FPS of the last 15 years.
As for whether it was innovative or not, I find that discussion pretty irrelevant. It does innovate in a lot of key ways (virtual couches and a quickmatch playlist system that works and stays interesting) but I don't really think that's an important debate. I really think that the importance of innovation has become a little overstated. Yes, I love a unique and innovative game. But sometimes I like a solid entry into a genre that works within the rules of that genre and does everything right.
Frankly I think a lot of gamers talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to innovation. They'll criticise games they don't like for their lack of innovation but then turn around and go back to playing the Castlevania 2d games or Mario Kart. And why not? They're both great, great games that have a solid design and perfect execution. They're so fun we don't mind that their design hasn't changed in 10 years.
Innovation isn't a yardstick of quality, it's just something that can set a game apart from it's peers. I'm not so jaded and bored with gaming that I think every game has to be something completely new to me.
My gripe with the game is that its dumbed down for mass apeal. As the technical and competitive aspects of the game boil down to two things, 1) do you have a pistol 2) do you have a sniper rifle or possiblly 3) do you have the rocket luancher and are you on a ghost
You like it, thats fine. I fell like a damn parrot, but halo is not very deep for an FPS, its highly dumbed down, and competitve play is all about just 2 guns, mostly just 1 (pistols be one magnum the other plasma while dual wielding) This is why i do not like it. That and the run speed, which does not exsist, solidifies its casual gamer appeal.
You may have played the first FPS at the dawn of time, but that doesn't mean your good at them, nor does it mean you play competitively. So your love for it is different then my hate. My hate spawns from a severe lacking in the thought of balance, in the thought of technicality, and the placement of weapons rather then the starting off of weapons. MANY MANY MANY FPS's have had better blanace, levels, technical abilities (secondary gun abilities people?) and over all though (dur, one anti-vehcile weapon on a level = whoring like mad on a vehcile while you carry that weapon, and plz don't say you can hi-jack, because no one with half a brain gets near the target on a vehicle, you slow them down with ghost plasm and kill, its slower then .8 seconds but 2.4 seconds is still good for a kill)
Post by: hudsonhawk on December 10, 2006, 04:06:52 AM
Way to both miss and prove my point at the same time.
Post by: Nick DiMola on December 10, 2006, 04:56:34 AM
The first Halo was unbalanced weapon wise, and as such, I can not consider it a solid game (Sniper Pistol anyone?). Halo 2 dumbed down the regenerating health even more than the first which allowed people to run away in the middle of a fire fight and comeback as if nothing happened ... not cool. Halo 2 did bring HUGE innovation to the online gaming scene in their way of handling matchmaking and getting into a game quickly, I can't talk crap on this fact because they did do a great job. Same with the vehicles, they have always been fantastic and the only part of the game I truly enjoy. Halo works for some people, but not for me. It is too forgiving. It puts people on the same plane while giving an advantage to people who are familiar with the levels. Being good at an FPS should not be dependent on whether or not you know the level, it should depend on whether or not you are good at any FPS. Like I said this could work for you, but it doesn't work for me.
When I call it the common man's FPS I say it for a reason, and not to be an elitist. It is, and it was meant to be what it is. This isn't inherently a bad thing, as Goldeneye was also a common mans FPS. I liked what Goldeneye brought to gaming more than what Halo brought. Halo is slow and the strategy encourages being a coward, while Goldeneye was alwasy fast paced and encouraged face to face firefights. Anyway, this thread is a waste, talking about Halo with Nintendo fans always brings out the worst in people.
Post by: Amodaus1 on December 10, 2006, 06:19:07 AM
hudsonhawk: I hate halo for reasons of competitiveness, like i said, your like for the game is different from my HATE for the game. You like the game design and think its fun. I think its unbalanced and has many flaws in multiplayer which ruins the fun for me. We're talking about different things in our posts, thats why i didn't bother addressing all of your points, because i don't think its nessesary and i agree with you on other points. As for me patronizing you by saying its a dumbed donw fps, i guess i proved your point, but thats simply how i feel and continue to feel about the game.
Post by: Kairon on December 10, 2006, 08:00:23 AM
STOP IT! STOP IT!
TALK MORE ABOUT HOW ALL TEENAGERS ARE FRICKIN' EMO!!!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
P.S. Besides, Halo isn't destroying gaming. Nongames like Brain Age are.
Post by: Amodaus1 on December 10, 2006, 09:00:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
ARGH! THIS TURNED INTO A HALO DISCUSSION!
STOP IT! STOP IT!
TALK MORE ABOUT HOW ALL TEENAGERS ARE FRICKIN' EMO!!!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
P.S. Besides, Halo isn't destroying gaming. Nongames like Brain Age are.
Oh man, don't get me started. If you think my posts are long now.... The world would end before i could finish my text on those dumb emo kids.
"Daddy you don't understand how complicated and awful my life is."
"Your right, thats why I'm shipping you to a 3rd world country, so you can teach them to feel your pain!"
Post by: SixthAngel on December 10, 2006, 10:34:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Amodaus1
To put it simply, WOW. I LOLed so hard when i read the word battle rifle, in the same context of overpowered.
I'm going to take it that your not a hard core tournement player. I'm going to take it that your not in a clan. I'm going to take it that you never traveled to different campuses to participate in different college tournaments for the game. But as someone who has... please, when you state something make sure you know what your talking about. The battle rifle is not broken, it is not overpowered, what it is is barely used.
Dual wielding (pre-patch, i never played 1.1 as i walked away from the game forever after 5 months of play) is superior in every way.
You stopped playing after a few months, I didn't start playing after a few months. Apparently I missed most of the 1.0 which frankly doesn't matter and shouldn't even come up in a debate about Halo2 well over a year after its release. Don't complain and bitch to me about problems that have been fixed. You say to be sure about what you are talking about and yet you haven't played the game for more then a few months, and haven't for well over a year. The battle rifle has been overpowered for a long time now (especially with plasma pistol.) They even have a gametype called slayer pro because the br is the "pro" weapon now. You haven't played it for ages now and yet you somehow know everything.
A few posts after this one you complain about elitists yet during your entire post you look down on me constantly. DON'T PRETEND TO BE THE HALO EXPERT IF YOU HAVEN'T EVEN PLAYED THE UPDATE. You barely played the game so don't give me this tournament bullshit like it makes your opinion better then mine. I am no expert but I have played the game recently and can judge the multiplayer on its merits beyond the first month it was released.
On a side note my biggest problem with Halo is the fans. The arbiter was my favorite part of the second game yet it seems to regarded as the worst part by many. They all loved having an overpowered pistol in Halo 1 that made most other weapons useless, while I actually wanted to pick up other weapons. Unfortunately it seems like the parts that I thought were an improvement over the first Halo will be thrown out in the new one.
Post by: Amodaus1 on December 10, 2006, 03:49:49 PM
I did tournaments before leaving halo 2. BELIEVE ME, you may not have been around during its release, but a HELL of alot of us wanted that game and competitive play. There were tournaments assembled within 2 weeks of its release, so don't come here and call me on bullshit, you get your facts straight son. 4 months in and there were probably over 100 local tournaments, and maybe 2 or 3 well established ones. All had cash prizes. So please, call me on bull again, cause you don't know squat.
Maybe i'm dated, but i know some of my clan mates still play, and they pwn hard with sniper, and they pwn those nice little br and plasm pistol comboers. And they STILL pwn with dual pistols. Problem with plasma pistol switch to br is it requires the .5-1 second delay of plasma to travel and hit for that 0.3 second kill from the head shot with the br, so it's a .8-1.3 second kill total. Shotty sniper kills in .1 second for the head, and .5 for the double.
Your right, pro must have no plasma and rifle, cause the pros must clean house with sniper still, seeing as they didn't nerf the sniper.
Second, i know the patch wrecked the magnum, so i don't know how it holds up now, so your right, but i know the rifle at shotty range still pwns.
But i heard they fixed the rocket camping in a vehicle? thats news to me, why didn't you address that issue? Oh yeah thats right, they never fixed that.
Post by: couchmonkey on December 11, 2006, 06:01:39 AM
The idea of serious game trailers is fine. I think the trailers were kind of cool (though I still don't feel the music from the GOW trailer fits that well with the action). However, I also think the end of game trailers is nigh. I mean, they'll still be around, but I think we're going to see more of a focus on gameplay in the future as a new generation of games renders plot and movies less-relevant.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 11, 2006, 06:23:43 PM
PffftahAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
Post by: couchmonkey on December 12, 2006, 02:38:38 AM
Edit: Animal Crossing? New Super Mario Bros? Spore? Wii Sports?
Post by: Amodaus1 on December 12, 2006, 03:07:01 AM
I didn't see much gameplay in that commercial, but then again, i didn't see much GAME in that commercial period.
Post by: couchmonkey on December 12, 2006, 07:48:05 AM
