JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

#Halo
0
DO0MTRA1N

DO0MTRA1N

12/13/2012 2:24:50 PM
Before I begin I want to start by saying that the reason for this post is because it's hard to find a review of this game that doesn't have 343 PR stink all over it. The fact that there are so many rave reviews of this game really does astonish me and I'm honestly wondering if these people played the same game as me. Either way this is my opinion of the game and because I feel that not alot of people have this opinion I thought it important to get it out there. Agree or disagree this is how I feel. The majority of my main focus for the Halo games has always been the multiplayer but I do want to address the campaign as well. To put it bluntly, the Halo 4 campaign was brutal. Not in the Master Chief kicks covenant ass brutal, but more in the sense that Master Chief got bent over a pinball machine by 343 and -blam!- for everything he was worth. This story appeals to the lowest common denominator. In 343's defense, Bungie knew they had beaten the Master Chief's story to a dead pulp which is why they ended it in 3 and went on to making Reach. Halo 4 tries to breathe knew life into the corpse that is Master Chief's story. I feel like they missed the entire point of what Master Chief was. Now I'm not a Halo historian. I havn't read any books nor could really even recite the main plot points of every Halo game, but the Halo 4 campaign felt like it was written by a Twilight fan girl. I'm sorry but a love interest? I didn't say -blam!- love interest but that's exactly what it is. Master Chief's "love" for his AI. At the end of every mission after watching the cutscene I would literally stand up and yell "WHO THE -blam!- CARES?!" Who cares if Cortana is deteriorating. She's artificial, it's in the name. They could get Chief a new model with all the same memories and NO ONE WOULD KNOW THE FREAKING DIFFERENCE! Master Chief is about doing the impossible. It's about having one man be the difference maker in a galactic war. It's about duty, honor and kicking the living -blam!- out of alien ass and having the most badass reserved guy for the job do it. It's not about his emotions or his psychology or having to wrestle with his humanity. He's a super soldier. He is supposed to be the constant. Not the emotional and broody protagonist with pre-teen angst over the loss of a rebuildable AI. Look I see what 343 was going for but for me, it doesn't work. For me the campaign was a really hollow experience. I never cared about what I was doing. Also someone needs to say this, the forerunners look -blam!- stupid. They look like robotic bugs. Nothing about what the forerunners are supposed to represent should make me think of them as insects. And for someone who is supposed to be a superior and vastly evolved race, the Didact sure does whine alot. Looks like 343 created a Bowser to Master Chief's Mario taking away any possible thoughtful or creative plot elements and ensuring that they disappear from future installments of the Chiefs story. Compare this story to what Bungie did with Halo: Reach. Bungie's cous de gras from the series was beautiful. They knew that Chief's story has been told and went back to look at 1 group of spartans tragic but beautiful story. It was about sacrifice and honor. Not once did I think during that campaign, "But how do these spartans FEEL about having to save the world" nor should I. I cared about these Spartans and got to know them and love them for what they did. With each death came a newfound respect and I loved every second of that campaign up until the most heroic and tragic death being Noble six trying to fight off the impossible and knowing death is coming but godamn im not going down without a fight. It was poetic and inspiring and it made me want to beat every single mission on SLASO which I did. It didn't rely on gimmicks. Most every gameplay aspect was there from previous versions of Halo with the exception of a few additions, such as the spacefight which was awesome, but the difference was it didn't have to rely on an array of awkward and stupid looking enemies or a vast array of impractical weapons, although they were really shiny I'll give them that. The fights themselves were all the same. Go to this area and clear out room. Once room is clear press button. Ok this time do the exact thing with a different -blam!-ier weapon and on a moving platform. Ok now do that again but here's a robot you can do it in. Same old same old. To put it simply Halo 4 was exactly what I thought it was going to be. A cashcow that's been sent to the slaughterhouse. The worst part is they're going to do it all over again and probably for awhile with each new installment probably being more gimmicky than the last. This is how Halo 4's campaign made me feel and I would like to think that the majority of fans can tell the difference between an original and a fake. But I see nobody making these same points. And everywhere I look it's the same BS over and over again. Onto the multiplayer. Again, it's been ruined for me. The reason I loved Halo multiplayer was because at the begininng of every match everyone was at the same odds of winning. The only difference between the players was one thing. Skill. Do you know why games like Call of Duty and Battlefield are so much more widely played? Because in those games, if you luck out hard enough, you can still win games. Being good at a game used to mean something in Halo multiplayer. Where's the logic in having the person with the most experience in the game getting the more powerful upgrades. There are so many possible mismatches and combinations of weapons and armor abilities that sooner or later you'll come across someone who is ill equipped for your layout and you will get the kill. It comes down to luck in Halo 4 like it does with Call of Duty. The more people that are under the impression that they are "good" at the game, the more people log in to play the game. The more people that play the game, the more money 343 makes. The more money 343 makes the more I cry inside. Why do you think Halo: Reach wasn't as well played or in many cases liked? Because no one wanted to put forth the effort into perfecting the skill that was Halo multiplayer. It was man vs man. Not man plus x weapon y armor ability z upgrade vs the same. Do the math and and that's who wins. Cater to the lowest common denominator and more people will play your game. Does that make it better? No. The 2 Halo games that have had the most attention from me would be Halo 2 and Halo Reach but that doesn't mean that I didn't play others. I played my fair share of Halo 3 and you know what? I sucked at it. Me and my friend would always play multi team just me and him vs 3 or 4 other teams alike. Probably out of at least 150 matches we didn't win a single game. And you know what? I loved it. I loved it because we were severely outmatched but the taste of that possible victory was that much sweeter. I got a 360 pretty late so by the time I got Halo 3 people were already way better at it. But with each loss came more experience and furthering our goals to a victory that much more. In Halo 4 wins are meaningless to me. Hell, kills are now that much more meaningless. I find that the best player is decided not by kills, KD, or really even a skill score anymore. It's all by medals and points. Medals give you points but who decides what is worth more points. For example a headshot is worth 10 points but a killing spree is worth 5?! I understand you get points for each individual kill but 5 freaking points. I'm constantly getting beaten out by people with far less kills than me and its aggravating. This game has no substance to it. It's meaningless. And do I really need to talk about the gimmicky weapons anymore? Like how most of the promethean weapons are impractical in ANY situation. And those promethean grenades has anyone actually gotten a kill with one of those? Kills arn't an indication of skill and the story isn't an indication of intelligence. Rather the lack thereof. Halo 4 has disappointing me thoroughly. Cue angry mob. [Edited on 12.13.2012 6:47 AM PST]

Edit Preview Cancel

  • 0
    BobBQ

    BobBQ

    12/14/2012 9:44:36 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ajw34307 Plus, you make yourself look like an idiotic twat with your Transformers quip. Are you trying to further discredit yourself, or do you just enjoy being a prat instead of arguing things in a reasoned manner?[/quote] For that lovely bit of hypocrisy, you win one gassed thread!
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    Heinrieck
  • 0
    NAStheMagiking

    NAStheMagiking

    12/14/2012 8:08:04 PM Permalink
    Again, I agree with ajw; especially on 'Chief's development. He says it so much better than I. I think 343 handled the 'humanizing' of 'Chief delicately. He still has all the classic hallmarks of what we've seen in the past, but he now has more nuances to him that progresses him as a character, without destroying his status as a strong, stoic, inspiring, and extraordinary man. What I loved about the novels is that you got to read his thoughts. How, even though it doesn't show on the outside, he presents very real emotions. It's all kept inside, but I can imagine there would be intricate details in the sound of his speech, or his body language; nothing too dramatic but just enough. He was so much more endearing, and I respected him more as a character. He is a figure of hope that fights many battles that we can't see. He became more than a shell. I think 343 brings this to Halo 4. He has more nuance in his movement, and speech, but not enough to take anything away. Unlike the book we can never get inside his head, though. All that he feels is purely based on what we can derive from aforementioned intricacies. He doesn't make any dramatic gestures. When all is said and done and he's walking through the Infinity - Spartan IV's looking on in awe - he still exerts this mysticism and strength. The same when he steps out of the Pelican, before the brilliant scene with Lasky. The Halo 4 Campaign doesn't ruin anything...only adds layers. He has progressed as a character, but he's still a badass super soldier.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    fsabran

    fsabran

    12/14/2012 6:56:15 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ajw34307 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] fsabran [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ajw34307 [/quote]Why cant we have like butons? they would be so usefull now.[/quote] I've often wondered this myself, I think that Achronos believes people would just abuse it (seems to work just fine on most other sites, like Youtube...).[/quote]Yeah, and it's not like people use it as an argument, Spacebattles has it and just because people get like they normaly dont use those as an argument or brag about it.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    Chronarch

    Chronarch

    12/14/2012 6:54:02 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] fsabran [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ajw34307 [/quote]Why cant we have like butons? they would be so usefull now.[/quote] I've often wondered this myself, I think that Achronos believes people would just abuse it (seems to work just fine on most other sites, like Youtube...).
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    fsabran

    fsabran

    12/14/2012 6:52:09 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ajw34307 [/quote]Why cant we have like butons? they would be so usefull now.
  • 0
    Chronarch

    Chronarch

    12/14/2012 3:37:06 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] DO0MTRA1N Maybe theft is a hyperbole but my point is alot of ideas were borrowed when making Halo 4. My point is that it's unoriginal. It's not innovative there is nothing new here except the shiny new weapons and enemy models.[/quote] A lot of ideas were 'borrowed' for the original Halo trilogy, ODST and Reach... what's your point here exactly? Halo isn't an original series, the vast majority of it is copied from some source or other, yet only [i]now[/i] does it seem to be an issue for you. Halo doesn't need to be innovative or original, in fact the main complaint I'm seeing is that it's not enough like the previous games in the series. These people need to realise that they cannot have both... [quote]By your logic because COD is so successful today every FPS should follow their formula. COD is cheap. They churn out a new one every year to keep their 12 year old fanboys salivating long enough to demand their latest remake of last years game from these kids parents. I would like to see something new and unique. Not the same old FPS year in and year out. COD has dominated the market as far as FPS's go. Halo until Halo 4 held its own because it wasn't following in COD's footsteps. If that's what you want then fine, go and enjoy Halo 4 but my expectations were higher. Cater to the lowest common denominator.[/quote] No, this was not what I said nor what I even implied. Halo became popular and successful by stealing from popular games of its time (DOOM, Quake, Duke Nukem, Metroid, Half-Life etc), the gaming community has changed over the past decade, what was once popular is now seen as a quaint, nostalgic throwback to a bygone age. Halo has simply adapted to the norm of today's marketed FPS games (which, I might mention, it helped shape by combining the elements it stole) while still retaining the identity it has held for so long. Also, look at every FPS out there within the last 5 years. The [i]vast[/i] majority of them have become what people refer to as 'COD-clones' because of its popularity. Halo 4 simply takes elements from that series and interweaves them with the already established formula. I do prefer the more Quake-esque arena style that Halo CE-3 had, but I don't view this change to the current standard as anything particularly bad either. As for wanting to see something "new and unique", you're playing the wrong genre if that's what you expect. The shooter genre has done every trick in the book. [quote]What you view as failure is actually intention. If you read the rest of what ninja wrote you would understand that it was never practical to have this character development. Bungie deliberately didn't want Chief to explore this human and emotional side. Re-read his post. He's not saying he can't be a hero, just that it's contradicting to who Chief was up until the events of Halo 4.[/quote] It's not contradictory at all to the Chief's presentation in the previous games [i]at all[/i] though. He retains the [i]exact[/i] same characteristics he had in Halo CE-3, he's still the stoic supersoldier out to save the day. He's simply got more depth, and the way it was done through his relationship with Cortana and the ongoing thematic elements introduced from the get-go culminated in something that was nothing short of poetic. They're sticking to the same literary device that was used in Halo CE-3 for John's gradual devlopment - the 'Hero's Journey'. This was a major focus in one of the A Hero Awakens ViDocs, and shines through in the game. It worked perfectly, I honestly can't understand why people are gagging for John to become a sterile, boring, undeveloped archetype... [quote]Which is exactly why Chief's story was supposed to end in Halo 3, so that it wouldn't get boring. Why do you think that Bungie went on to make ODST and Halo: Reach? To create an entirely new and immersive experience with a different plot and different characters. Keeping it fresh. 343i is trying to beat a dead horse. There is no depth in Halo 4 but if shiny new weapons and explosions is all you need to keep happy then by all means. You should also go watch the latest Transformer movies, you'd love them.[/quote] [quote]And pray tell what are these MAJOR plot points?[/quote] (* refers to points Halo 3 introduced) 1) 6 of the 7 Halo rings are still primed and ready to fire - a shadow that will forever loom over the Halo universe as long as it's unresolved. *2) The Gravemind tells us that defeat at Installation 04B only delays his return at the end of Halo 3. *3) Medicant Bias virtually screams to the player that the Chief's story is not done, informing us that: *4) The Forerunners are not dead... *5) ...and that the path to the Forerunners is "frought with peril," suggesting a new threat. *6) No explanation whatsoever was given to these mysterious new beings referenced by the Didact called the Precursors. Later forming the basis of Greg Bear's 'cosmic game' in the Forerunner Saga, and which we now know is feeding directly into the story of the Reclaimer Trilogy. *7) Nor was any explanation given as to what "following in Their footsteps" means when the Didact started talking about the Great Journey he will go on after he fires the Halos. *7.1) Therefore, The Great Journey does in fact exist, but has been misinterpretted by the Prophets. What is the Journey, and what is the signifigance? 8) Mankind has yet to uphold their destiny as the guardians of the universe (as mankind's destiny is the entire thematic point of the series, not continuing the story would mean voiding the relevance of the franchise as a story). This forms the thematic basis for the Reclaimer Trilogy, as the name itself implies. 9) We do not know if humanity can survive the inevitable tensions between the Covenant client races, the Elites, and themselves. *10) We did not know (at the time, until Cryptum) what made humanity so special and worth saving in the eyes of Librarian. She said that we held the answer to many Forerunner secrets, we were her solution to something. *11) Cortana, who holds the largest wealth of Forerunner knowledge in the universe aside from the Forerunners themselves, is slowly drifting into insanity. How can anyone claim that Halo 3 provided any kind of satisfying closure when we spend the whole game building up to her rescue only for her to be discarded and left to rot into insanity half an hour later? *12) And finally, Master Chief, the selected messenger of Medicant Bias, is drifting near a Forerunner world at the very end of Halo 3. The novels add plenty of substance to these plot points and have developed them to set up answers in the Reclaimer Trilogy. Halo 4 covered a great many of these themes because that's what the basis of the entire story was built around. It's not beating a dead horse at all, and Bungie wanting to take a break from John's story doesn't even remotely prove that - especially since they started drawing up their own concepts for Halo 4 before deciding to do Reach because they knew that by doing Halo 4 as their last game they'd be getting back into a story they couldn't finish. Halo 4 has, by far, the most depth through its development of John and Cortana, and the fact that it's the culmination of over 5 years worth of fiction. Just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean there isn't depth or substance there - there is, the very fact that we are debating this is a testament to that. Plus, you make yourself look like an idiotic twat with your Transformers quip. Are you trying to further discredit yourself, or do you just enjoy being a prat instead of arguing things in a reasoned manner?
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    Kenger Benger

    Kenger Benger

    12/14/2012 4:30:49 AM Permalink
    Prometheans are NOT Forerunner. They are Forerunner constructs but they are not the Forerunners themselves. They are humans whose bodies have been "Composed" by the Composer and put into Promethean "skins" or "battlesuits" or "exoskeletons" or whatever you want to call it.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    FallenLegend

    FallenLegend

    12/14/2012 3:46:10 AM Permalink
    wow you missed the entire point of the story.... not sure if trolling or just idiotic. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] DO0MTRA1N Before I begin I want to start by saying that the reason for this post is because it's hard to find a review of this game that doesn't have 343 PR stink all over it. The fact that there are so many rave reviews of this game really does astonish me and I'm honestly wondering if these people played the same game as me. Either way this is my opinion of the game and because I feel that not alot of people have this opinion I thought it important to get it out there. Agree or disagree this is how I feel. The majority of my main focus for the Halo games has always been the multiplayer but I do want to address the campaign as well. To put it bluntly, the Halo 4 campaign was brutal. Not in the Master Chief kicks covenant ass brutal, but more in the sense that Master Chief got bent over a pinball machine by 343 and -blam!- for everything he was worth. This story appeals to the lowest common denominator. In 343's defense, Bungie knew they had beaten the Master Chief's story to a dead pulp which is why they ended it in 3 and went on to making Reach. Halo 4 tries to breathe knew life into the corpse that is Master Chief's story. I feel like they missed the entire point of what Master Chief was. Now I'm not a Halo historian. I havn't read any books nor could really even recite the main plot points of every Halo game, but the Halo 4 campaign felt like it was written by a Twilight fan girl. I'm sorry but a love interest? I didn't say -blam!- love interest but that's exactly what it is. Master Chief's "love" for his AI. At the end of every mission after watching the cutscene I would literally stand up and yell "WHO THE -blam!- CARES?!" Who cares if Cortana is deteriorating. She's artificial, it's in the name. They could get Chief a new model with all the same memories and NO ONE WOULD KNOW THE FREAKING DIFFERENCE! Master Chief is about doing the impossible. It's about having one man be the difference maker in a galactic war. It's about duty, honor and kicking the living -blam!- out of alien ass and having the most badass reserved guy for the job do it. It's not about his emotions or his psychology or having to wrestle with his humanity. He's a super soldier. He is supposed to be the constant. Not the emotional and broody protagonist with pre-teen angst over the loss of a rebuildable AI. Look I see what 343 was going for but for me, it doesn't work. For me the campaign was a really hollow experience. I never cared about what I was doing. Also someone needs to say this, the forerunners look -blam!- stupid. They look like robotic bugs. Nothing about what the forerunners are supposed to represent should make me think of them as insects. And for someone who is supposed to be a superior and vastly evolved race, the Didact sure does whine alot. Looks like 343 created a Bowser to Master Chief's Mario taking away any possible thoughtful or creative plot elements and ensuring that they disappear from future installments of the Chiefs story. Compare this story to what Bungie did with Halo: Reach. Bungie's cous de gras from the series was beautiful. They knew that Chief's story has been told and went back to look at 1 group of spartans tragic but beautiful story. It was about sacrifice and honor. Not once did I think during that campaign, "But how do these spartans FEEL about having to save the world" nor should I. I cared about these Spartans and got to know them and love them for what they did. With each death came a newfound respect and I loved every second of that campaign up until the most heroic and tragic death being Noble six trying to fight off the impossible and knowing death is coming but godamn im not going down without a fight. It was poetic and inspiring and it made me want to beat every single mission on SLASO which I did. It didn't rely on gimmicks. Most every gameplay aspect was there from previous versions of Halo with the exception of a few additions, such as the spacefight which was awesome, but the difference was it didn't have to rely on an array of awkward and stupid looking enemies or a vast array of impractical weapons, although they were really shiny I'll give them that. The fights themselves were all the same. Go to this area and clear out room. Once room is clear press button. Ok this time do the exact thing with a different -blam!-ier weapon and on a moving platform. Ok now do that again but here's a robot you can do it in. Same old same old. To put it simply Halo 4 was exactly what I thought it was going to be. A cashcow that's been sent to the slaughterhouse. The worst part is they're going to do it all over again and probably for awhile with each new installment probably being more gimmicky than the last. This is how Halo 4's campaign made me feel and I would like to think that the majority of fans can tell the difference between an original and a fake. But I see nobody making these same points. And everywhere I look it's the same BS over and over again. Onto the multiplayer. Again, it's been ruined for me. The reason I loved Halo multiplayer was because at the begininng of every match everyone was at the same odds of winning. The only difference between the players was one thing. Skill. Do you know why games like Call of Duty and Battlefield are so much more widely played? Because in those games, if you luck out hard enough, you can still win games. Being good at a game used to mean something in Halo multiplayer. Where's the logic in having the person with the most experience in the game getting the more powerful upgrades. There are so many possible mismatches and combinations of weapons and armor abilities that sooner or later you'll come across someone who is ill equipped for your layout and you will get the kill. It comes down to luck in Halo 4 like it does with Call of Duty. The more people that are under the impression that they are "good" at the game, the more people log in to play the game. The more people that play the game, the more money 343 makes. The more money 343 makes the more I cry inside. Why do you think Halo: Reach wasn't as well played or in many cases liked? Because no one wanted to put forth the effort into perfecting the skill that was Halo multiplayer. It was man vs man. Not man plus x weapon y armor ability z upgrade vs the same. Do the math and and that's who wins. Cater to the lowest common denominator and more people will play your game. Does that make it better? No. The 2 Halo games that have had the most attention from me would be Halo 2 and Halo Reach but that doesn't mean that I didn't play others. I played my fair share of Halo 3 and you know what? I sucked at it. Me and my friend would always play multi team just me and him vs 3 or 4 other teams alike. Probably out of at least 150 matches we didn't win a single game. And you know what? I loved it. I loved it because we were severely outmatched but the taste of that possible victory was that much sweeter. I got a 360 pretty late so by the time I got Halo 3 people were already way better at it. But with each loss came more experience and furthering our goals to a victory that much more. In Halo 4 wins are meaningless to me. Hell, kills are now that much more meaningless. I find that the best player is decided not by kills, KD, or really even a skill score anymore. It's all by medals and points. Medals give you points but who decides what is worth more points. For example a headshot is worth 10 points but a killing spree is worth 5?! I understand you get points for each individual kill but 5 freaking points. I'm constantly getting beaten out by people with far less kills than me and its aggravating. This game has no substance to it. It's meaningless. And do I really need to talk about the gimmicky weapons anymore? Like how most of the promethean weapons are impractical in ANY situation. And those promethean grenades has anyone actually gotten a kill with one of those? Kills arn't an indication of skill and the story isn't an indication of intelligence. Rather the lack thereof. Halo 4 has disappointing me thoroughly. Cue angry mob.[/quote]
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    adamj004

    adamj004

    12/14/2012 3:19:47 AM Permalink
    I too did not like the story and campaign and one of the main reasons imo was the character development especially with the didact. Personally I dont think it was good at all. As he is the main enemy, the biggest threat yet and the leader of all forerunner military, it just didnt felt like he was.. He was barely in the game didnt say or do much, he was was like vigilante constantly on the run through out the campaign. He just didnt seem to feel like humanities greatest threat. Also it was never properly explained in the campaign what the didacts motives were, his plans and why he is doing the things he's doing. I know the terminals go into a little more detail, but since the terminals were always about background stories and are kinda separate and a part of the main story in the campaign. But they felt too separated from the main story in halo 4 and the fact we have to watch them outside of the game makes the gap even bigger. Another thing about the characters is that no one was surprised or shocked to see the chief especially since all of humanity thought he was dead and even more so no one even made as much as a flinch when they seen the didact, a living breathing forerunner who is very very angry and no one was even shocked. So the lack of communication, emotion and interaction from the characters made me seem like nothing was a big deal, it never got me focused or properly interested into whats going on. I think the whole story in general in halo 4 was bland and the gameplay and objectives did not provide any replay value, i would go into more detail as to why i think this but it will be too much to type. [Edited on 12.13.2012 7:23 PM PST]
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    ThunderCavaler7

    ThunderCavaler7

    12/14/2012 2:44:56 AM Permalink
    I agree with you, OP, but for different reasons. I hate the Halo 4 story because I disagree with taking the story to the Forerunners. The Forerunners, imo, were better left enigmatic, and exposing them like they did just diminishes their value. If these guys were truly "such an advanced race," then how the -blam!- am I killing them with this DMR? And don't give me the crap that these are Prometheans and not Forerunners - they're constructs made by the Forerunners specifically for killing. If anything, they should be BETTER at killing than the actual Didact, in individual skill at least. I'm sure the Didact is a brilliant tactical leader... even if he was a complete idiot in the story. Chief and Cortana's relationship elaborated in Halo 4 was, imo, far more interesting. As the longest-running characters and Cortana being the one with (arguably) the most personality in the story, it's nice to see Chief trying to heal Cortana and just seeing their close-knit relationship slowly fall apart as Cortana dies. It's actually painful seeing Cortana literally emotionally and physically breaking down, and seeing Chief unable to respond emotionally since he's, for the past couple decades, been conditioned not to. His whole sequence at the end of the story was to basically show that he was trying to deal with Cortana's death like he did everything else: stoicism, and it wasn't exactly working that time. As for the Multiplayer... eh, it's alright. Personally, I don't care, since I always have my Sprint with me now to use, and having to always spawn with a DMR makes me happy. I understand that some of the skill has been sucked away, but I still get into enjoyable DMR duels every now and again. And if I see anyone using an Assault Rifle, I just laugh. Hard. It's really sad.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    DO0MTRA1N

    DO0MTRA1N

    12/14/2012 2:25:41 AM Permalink
    I definitely see your point but things like a characters personality and humanity are topics that no amount of background or lore can explain. When one aspect of someone's nature is violated by certain actions taken that directly contradict that nature then there is a disconnect between what we thought we knew about this character and the new information given. It's unsettling. Could the Halo series have been just as successful had they given Chief a different set of characteristics and a new personality? Sure. But am I going to expect the same characteristics that I'm used to from the first 3 games once the 4th installment comes around? Absolutely. As for the lore and background itself I do not claim to be able to spot things like inconsistency and canon. I'll leave that to the people in the other thread going on in this forum [Edited on 12.13.2012 6:31 PM PST]
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    Wolvers

    Wolvers

    12/14/2012 2:07:57 AM Permalink
    Mate, the entire campaign is an inconsistency. That's not what bothers me, I'd have been cool with some retcons but the story's just not written well and neither are the character. I burnt out all my dislike for [i]Reach[/i] ages ago and don't feel like typing out a rant again; I don't do that much these days, it's a waste of time - in hindsight it's a decent game, and is inconsequential enough to canon that I can ignore it. Marcus Lehto is simply not as good a writer as Jason Jones/Joe Staten. Multiplayer was cool, I think it did some things better than [i]Halo 4[/i] and some things worse. Either way, both games still exist so that's really no problem. I do think that if you haven't experienced every facet of Halo lore, you shouldn't critique the story of any game beyond understandable upsets about not being able to understand it without having read the auxiliary lore - something I agree with. I've read every book and all that lark, but my biggest criticism of [i]Halo 4[/i]'s plot is still that people who have just played the games will have a hard time understanding it, even with the hidden-away terminals. It's sloppy; imagine if the [i]Star Wars VII[/i] assumed every viewer had read all the Extended Universe. I have never touched a single SW book in my life, and yet I still consider myself a fan of the series. If Disney excluded the story to the EU nerds and those people told me 'deal with it, you aren't a fan if you haven't read all the extended universe' I'd go mental. Mediums should be self-contained - you should never need to read a book to understand what's going on in the sequel to a video game. But you do, and so really you shouldn't criticise a story you don't fully understand, even if by all rights 343i should have made it so you could. Bit of a non sequitur there I guess, but whatever. That's my biggest problem with [i]Halo 4[/i]. The lack of a classic playlist is my second biggest - sprint, ordinance, loadouts and instant respawn are okay, but they're not really my scene. [i]Halo 4[/i] has the capability to almost perfectly emulate [i]Halo 3[/i]'s matchmaking with just a few tweaks. I don't know why 343i haven't done so. [Edited on 12.13.2012 6:09 PM PST]
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    DO0MTRA1N

    DO0MTRA1N

    12/14/2012 1:37:14 AM Permalink
    [quote]Funny how everyone around here is suddenly portraying Reach as the second coming, when not a few years ago it was almost universally (geddit?) lambasted. Rose tinted syndrome. Reach was an absolutely narrative mess. Decent levels and overall a fun enough campaign, but the story was bad on so many levels. I'm not even talking about the canonical inconsistencies.[/quote] Now I can't speak for the rest of the community but I always took to Reach. In fact I was the only one out my friends that continued to play the game way past everyone else up until just before Halo 4. I was always made fun of for it as well. I never took to COD or really any other FPS. No one wanted to play with me because that was all I played which makes sense. The game rewards skill and none of my friends had it. Yeah it was lonely but goddamn kicking ass online was and still is amazing. It brought me back to my Halo 2 days which is my second favorite Halo. As for the story I've made my point on that already. And for the canonical inconsistencies I never looked too hard into that mainly because the majority of the fun for me came from multiplayer and I couldn't even tell you what even happened in some Halo games but I am interested in what those inconsistencies are if you'd care to point them out. [quote]Not if your playing there new free-for-all gametype there trying to pass as even more "intense" and "frantic" then original free-for-all. *coughs* Regicide. *coughs*[/quote] Good point on Regicide I hadn't thought of that.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    Skorchhead

    Skorchhead

    12/14/2012 1:26:26 AM Permalink
    [quote] By what parameter are you "The worst on the team"? If you have the most kills on your team, regardless of score, you were not the worst player. But there is NO WAY you're going to have the worst score on the team with the most kills. You might be second to one or two guys, but you're not going to be last. [/quote] Not if your playing there new free-for-all gametype there trying to pass as even more "intense" and "frantic" then original free-for-all. *coughs* [i]Regicide.[/i] *coughs* [Edited on 12.13.2012 5:28 PM PST]
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    Wolvers

    Wolvers

    12/14/2012 1:21:22 AM Permalink
    Funny how everyone around here is suddenly portraying [i]Reach[/i] as the second coming, when not a few years ago it was almost universally (geddit?) lambasted. Rose tinted syndrome. [i]Reach[/i] was an absolutely narrative mess. Decent levels and overall a fun enough campaign, but the story was bad on so many levels. I'm not even talking about the canonical inconsistencies.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    DO0MTRA1N

    DO0MTRA1N

    12/14/2012 1:09:20 AM Permalink
    Yeah he was holding back. I'm afraid we may never know the truth of what Ryan really feels. I feel like the statement "There's alot of Halo in the game." Pretty much means "Yup it's Halo game". The fact that he left it there I think is more telling than anything. [quote]OP is a troll, rest assured you've made your point[/quote] Edit: I promise you this isn't a troll. I will admit to not knowing fully how the scoring system worked entirely. I was under the impression that the points awarded somehow lent to the outcome of the game. I was wrong. But My point is that those points are still meaningless and by no means a reflection of skill. There is no reward or statistic for being the more skilled player and as an extremely competitive player this is huge with me. Again I leave you with this quote from one of the ddevelopers at Bungie... [quote]Tyson Green: With the Arena rating system, we're trying to say, 'Here are the things we value and our players value in-game.' You get a higher rating by doing things that good players do: working with your teammates, getting kills and assists, and not dying a lot. You're playing Slayer, so if you die, you're giving [the enemy team] a point. Say you have two guys, one has a kill:death spread of 10 and the other has a spread of 2. Even if the guy with 2 scored a few more kills - the guy with the higher spread will get a better rating. The game is saying, 'You did the better job. You were playing the game better and working with your team better. This is what contributes to your overall rating.'[/quote] [Edited on 12.13.2012 5:27 PM PST]
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    YakZSmelk

    YakZSmelk

    12/14/2012 12:55:53 AM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ArcGuard Then why is there a frag? the sticky serves all the purposes that the frag does and more. And why is there a fuel rod if there is a rocket launcher? And why is there any covenant weapon when there is a similar human weapon? Answer - Variety. They do not do the SAME exact things. they are DIFFERENT and function DIFFERENTLY in different situations. And your "It doesn't reward patience" comment. ALL deathmatch/slayer games reward kills the SAME EXACT WAY. kills add to general score. deaths do not take away from it. Unless you're playing some weird tug-of-war DM varient, it is like this in EVERY GAME. How is this ANY different? I repeat - THE GAME DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE MORE POINTS IN A SLAYER MATCH VS. ANY OTHER HALO. If I got 5 kills and 4 deaths in Halo 4, my team for 5 points for that. If I did the SAME in Halo 3? My team STILL got 5 points for that. YOUR PERSONAL SCORE DOES NOT AFFECT THE TEAM SCORE. Your team ONLY gets points from KILLS in a slayer match NOTHING ELSE. So HOW is this any different than the old halos? HOW?[/quote] OP is a troll, rest assured you've made your point.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    flamedude

    flamedude

    12/14/2012 12:49:17 AM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] DO0MTRA1N [quote]It was Harold Ryan who was interviewed (by that bald loud guy) who was asked "What do you think of Halo 4?" to which Ryan replied with a very very curt "It's good". The way he said it..... to me suggests he wanted to say more but didn't want to get into it.[/quote] Can you link to a clip of this?[/quote] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZBXE7lO5_M&feature=youtu.be&t=12m50s]Here you go[/url] When asked "Have you played Halo 4?" Ryan replied "I've played Halo 4, its very beautiful to look at, there's a lot of Halo in the game and it was fun to play". So...... yeah not as bad as I remember. I still get the sense that he was holding back though, but that just might be because he was getting sick of being asked the same question.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    DO0MTRA1N

    DO0MTRA1N

    12/14/2012 12:38:13 AM Permalink
    @ninjakenzin Great post. I had no idea exactly how canon the novels were but it just proves my point that Bungie had one idea in mind as to who Chief was and they kept to that in everything they had control over. 343i had other plans in mind. [quote]This is a bad joke you're making, right? Halo has never been even remotely original in terms of story, aesthetics or gameplay mechanics. It's not theft, it's emulation. Bungie thought they could take what franchises like DOOM, Metroid, Wolvenstein, Quake, Half-Life and numerous other FPS games had done at the time with story, art and gameplay, and make their own mark on it. Hitherto, all that still remains in the series. So what if elements have been emulated from the Call of Duty franchise? It gets so much hate these days it's ridiculous, especially since MW, Black Ops and Black Ops 2 were very good in terms of story and the former game is what made COD the success it is today. Every developer steals things, don't even think it's rational to call 343i out for "theft" when it's what practically every developer has been doing for decades.[/quote] Maybe theft is a hyperbole but my point is alot of ideas were borrowed when making Halo 4. My point is that it's unoriginal. It's not innovative there is nothing new here except the shiny new weapons and enemy models. By your logic because COD is so successful today every FPS should follow their formula. COD is cheap. They churn out a new one every year to keep their 12 year old fanboys salivating long enough to demand their latest remake of last years game from these kids parents. I would like to see something new and unique. Not the same old FPS year in and year out. COD has dominated the market as far as FPS's go. Halo until Halo 4 held its own because it wasn't following in COD's footsteps. If that's what you want then fine, go and enjoy Halo 4 but my expectations were higher. Cater to the lowest common denominator. [quote]So because Bungie tried (and failed) to portray Spartan-IIs as human characters, that means it can't and shouldn't be done? Great, I guess we'll just ignore characters like Kurt, Jorge and Sam - the former and latter of whom had a heavy emphasis on being more 'human' characters, taking the time to socialise with others and even having a sense of humour.[/quote] What you view as failure is actually intention. If you read the rest of what ninja wrote you would understand that it was never practical to have this character development. Bungie deliberately didn't want Chief to explore this human and emotional side. Re-read his post. He's not saying he can't be a hero, just that it's contradicting to who Chief was up until the events of Halo 4. [quote]A character cannot remain unbroken forever, otherwise they become sterile, repetitive and boring. How can there be any drama or tension if it's not going to shape, threaten, and ultimately define the character? We are a product of our experiences, it's be bloody awful if John remained unaffected by events around him because he has reached a point where he is very much the symbol of humanity.[/quote] Which is exactly why Chief's story was supposed to end in Halo 3, so that it wouldn't get boring. Why do you think that Bungie went on to make ODST and Halo: Reach? To create an entirely new and immersive experience with a different plot and different characters. Keeping it fresh. 343i is trying to beat a dead horse. There is no depth in Halo 4 but if shiny new weapons and explosions is all you need to keep happy then by all means. You should also go watch the latest Transformer movies, you'd love them. [quote]3 ended with absolutely no closure and literally a dozen major (and I want to emphasise this word so when you think "oh well did they need to be developed?" you will know my response) plot points either introduced or left unresolved in the last mission.[/quote] And pray tell what are these MAJOR plot points? [quote]A number of Bungie employees (again, you're generalising - Bungie is not a single entity, nor a hive-mind, with a single opinion on anything) have spoken a number of times on their views about Halo 4. Alex Seropian said back in February that he knows Halo 4 is in good hands, saying that the Halo universe is being treated with care and respect (inb4 snide comments on this subject). Another employee said that Bungie was proud of the universe they created and are "honoured" 343 are continuing it. There was a recent interview on Youtube uploaded with either Harold Ryan or Jason Jones (I think it was the latter) who said he has played Halo 4 and loved it. While they're obviously not going to say outright negative things to the public and there will likely be employees with their reservations, we have been left with an overly positive response from Bungie on what 343i has done.[/quote] What Bungie publicly releases is not a reflection of how they truly feel. Yes there are multiple members of Bungie but all those people left their contract with Microsoft for a reason. Like I said, had Bungie stuck around to make another installment of Halo it would be vastly different to the game you all play today. I promise you that. [quote]It was Harold Ryan who was interviewed (by that bald loud guy) who was asked "What do you think of Halo 4?" to which Ryan replied with a very very curt "It's good". The way he said it..... to me suggests he wanted to say more but didn't want to get into it.[/quote] Can you link to a clip of this?
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    feedthefishy
  • 0
    flamedude

    flamedude

    12/13/2012 10:43:01 PM Permalink
    It was Harold Ryan who was interviewed (by that bald loud guy) who was asked "What do you think of Halo 4?" to which Ryan replied with a very very curt "It's good". The way he said it..... to me suggests he wanted to say more but didn't want to get into it.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    crumpster212

    crumpster212

    12/13/2012 10:42:56 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] NAStheMagiking You lost me somewhat when you called Halo Reach's story 'beautiful'. I'm sorry, but Bungie's attempt at giving as a deeper narrative showed me that's not where their strengths lie. The characters were poorly written (I swear they had less about them than 'Chief - original trilogy 'Chief, that is), and the overarching narrative took a while to deliver anything worthy of the event it was trying to depict. The fact that I felt nothing for what happened was both telling, and disappointing. I had really hoped to be moved, but it didn't happen. 343 did far better in that respect.[/quote]The only Spartan I felt sorry for was Jorge, all the others, meh.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    Chronarch

    Chronarch

    12/13/2012 10:38:23 PM Permalink
    [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] DO0MTRA1N Halo 4 is far from an original idea. It's theft. From Bungie, and from other FPS franchises.[/quote] This is a bad joke you're making, right? Halo has [i]never[/i] been even remotely original in terms of story, aesthetics or gameplay mechanics. It's not theft, it's emulation. Bungie thought they could take what franchises like DOOM, Metroid, Wolvenstein, Quake, Half-Life and numerous other FPS games had done at the time with story, art and gameplay, and make their own mark on it. Hitherto, all that still remains in the series. So what if elements have been emulated from the Call of Duty franchise? It gets so much hate these days it's ridiculous, especially since MW, Black Ops and Black Ops 2 were very good in terms of story and the former game is what made COD the success it is today. Every developer steals things, don't even think it's rational to call 343i out for "theft" when it's what practically every developer has been doing for decades. [quote]And that is why Bungie couldn't make the Spartans human - because they knew (felt!) it wasn't possible. They are almost robots. Bungie probably tried, but it wasn't very convincing and that is because they felt that the idea of Spartan, they created, just doesn't include much humanity. Sure, there is a bit - enough for us to play with the thought, but not too much. Adding too much humanity to Master Chief doesn't make him more profound or broader. It actually ruins what he really is. A hero.[/quote] So because Bungie tried (and failed) to portray Spartan-IIs as human characters, that means it can't and shouldn't be done? Great, I guess we'll just ignore characters like Kurt, Jorge and Sam - the former and latter of whom had a heavy emphasis on being more 'human' characters, taking the time to socialise with others and even having a sense of humour. The Spartan-IIs had their humanity suppressed due to the years of indoctrination and training, but that's because they were a product of that enclosed environment. When they're put into situations where they're forced to adapt and take stock of themselves, as 343 have pointed out, the process of development as a character begins and this is how we draw the line between [i]characters[/i] and [i]archetypes[/i]. Do explain where the line is to be drawn where John gets "too much humanity"... I'm also curious as to how you're going to explain how a character can't be a hero if they have a personality. [quote]I just wanted to add that I think the humanity and emotions were left to you the player. Because of the Role that Chief plays and the fact that he is so unwilling to break makes us, the player, feel the emotions that John can't.[/quote] A character cannot remain unbroken forever, otherwise they become sterile, repetitive and boring. How can there be any drama or tension if it's not going to shape, threaten, and ultimately define the character? We are a product of our experiences, it's be bloody [i]awful[/i] if John remained unaffected by events around him because he has reached a point where he is very much the symbol of humanity. [quote]That's why we love him so much[/quote] No, that's why [i]you[/i] love him so much. Don't go trying to speak for or generalise the views people have because your way of thinking is not the only way. [quote]The way 3 ended was awesome and it should've been left there.[/quote] 3 ended with absolutely no closure and literally a dozen [b]major[/b] (and I want to emphasise this word so when you think "oh well did they [i]need[/i] to be developed?" you will know my response) plot points either introduced or left unresolved in the last mission. [quote]Lastly I would love to hear what Bungie honestly thinks of Halo 4. Sadly that will never happen seeing as it is probably a breach of contract somehow but still. I dunno if Bungie reads their forums but I'd like them to know that these opinions are out there and that fans stick by the beautiful and inspiring gameplay and story that once was the Halo franchise.[/quote] A number of Bungie employees (again, you're generalising - Bungie is not a single entity, nor a hive-mind, with a single opinion on anything) have spoken a number of times on their views about Halo 4. [url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-29-bungie-co-founder-on-halo-4-id-be-pretty-surprised-if-they-wiffed-it]Alex Seropian said back in February that he knows Halo 4 is in good hands, saying that the Halo universe is being treated with care and respect (inb4 snide comments on this subject)[/url]. [url=http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1689233/halo_4_its_exciting_to_see_343_industries_game_says_bungie.html]Another employee said that Bungie was proud of the universe they created and are "honoured" 343 are continuing it[/url]. There was a recent interview on Youtube uploaded with either Harold Ryan or Jason Jones (I [i]think[/i] it was the latter) who said he has played Halo 4 and loved it. While they're obviously not going to say outright negative things to the public and there will likely be employees with their reservations, we have been left with an overly positive response from Bungie on what 343i has done.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
  • 0
    George 257

    George 257

    12/13/2012 10:21:30 PM Permalink
    I've formulated the thought, which is based solely on my feelings, that Bungie showed through the games that they care for the people who will take after them. Whether it is the children or future generations or 343i or maybe even us. I think so because I saw the principle of sacrificing, passing the torch or even "giving your best for those who will come" in the Forerunners, in Noble Team delivering Cortana's core. Also, there are some dudes in 343i that were formerly Bungie and some worked with them temporarily. So, I guess that Bungie wish their best to 343i and it is really cool. - I suppose I should wish 343i good bidding too... But sorry, Bungie, I remember your games too well, and all that fun we've had together... and this new stuff just doesn't seem right.
    Reply Start Related Topic
    Edit Preview Cancel
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon
You are not allowed to view this content.