So, as you're all most likely aware, Bungie has taken a stroll around the block and left Halo in the care of the specially-constructed 343 Industries, who, naturally, took the opportunity to announce Halo 4.
I'm not somebody who'll sit there and shout 'OMG LET IT DIE', because to be honest, I find that point of view completely and utterly ridiculous. However, I've decided I don't think I like 343.
The title update is almost out for Halo: Reach, and 343 gave us a few test playlists of what they want to do with the game.
The test playlists have little to no armour abilities, no reticle bloom, and shield bleeding, meaning that headshots do health damage as well as shield...sort of rendering them useless.
I remember a game like this that came out four years ago....what was it called? Oh yeah. Halo 3.
I think the cause of this may have a little to do with the fact that the online Halo community is the biggest group of bitches I've ever seen. It's the only place I'm aware of where 'Adapt' is a 'troll answer', like saying 'cool story bro' or 'u mad?'. The whole place is a hive of complaints about armour lock and reticle bloom - two of the three things conspicuously removed from the playlists.
Now, Escapist, I have to ask. Has it really gotten to the point where it's a rarity to play the game you're given? With community support as effective as it can be, every time somebody doesn't like something, they can actually have it changed.
Armour lock may be frustrating. But only if you're an idiot. If almost kill a guy and he armour-locks, just take the time to reload. If another guy joins in, knock his shields off and roll a grenade between the two of them. If it's been as long as you insist, the first guy will pop out right before the grenade explodes. Bam. Double kill.
Of course, you try explaining that on the Halo forums and suddenly people are regaling you about your K/D ratio.
It worries me when serious debates are solved with a rifle-measuring contest.
Now. I love Halo, as a series. Halo: Reach is one of my most played games. However, if these changes go ahead, I'm not sure I can keep playing. I know I sound hypocritical, refusing to adapt, but in all fairness, I've gotten accustomed to Reach, and I enjoy it. If I wanted 343's changes, I would go to a used game store, and I would buy Halo 3 real cheap.
Also, they're fucking with the established canon. Why does a prequel have more features than the last chronological one? Armour abilities were experimental and Spartan-IIs had steady, steady hands, so reticle bloom was not a problem in Halo 3. Spartan-IIIs, the playable soldiers in Reach, do not have this upgrade. That is why there is bloom.
So the discussion I put to you - What do you think of the changes? Do you like them, or do you agree with me that the Halo community is a hive of scum and villainy and that anybody who supports this Reach 2.0 is a member of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor?
If you're not a Halo fan, and you're not sure why you clicked the forum link, feel free to add your own complaints or praise for games you're familiar with that for reasons known only to themselves revert to a predecessor.
I'm not somebody who'll sit there and shout 'OMG LET IT DIE', because to be honest, I find that point of view completely and utterly ridiculous. However, I've decided I don't think I like 343.
The title update is almost out for Halo: Reach, and 343 gave us a few test playlists of what they want to do with the game.
The test playlists have little to no armour abilities, no reticle bloom, and shield bleeding, meaning that headshots do health damage as well as shield...sort of rendering them useless.
I remember a game like this that came out four years ago....what was it called? Oh yeah. Halo 3.
I think the cause of this may have a little to do with the fact that the online Halo community is the biggest group of bitches I've ever seen. It's the only place I'm aware of where 'Adapt' is a 'troll answer', like saying 'cool story bro' or 'u mad?'. The whole place is a hive of complaints about armour lock and reticle bloom - two of the three things conspicuously removed from the playlists.
Now, Escapist, I have to ask. Has it really gotten to the point where it's a rarity to play the game you're given? With community support as effective as it can be, every time somebody doesn't like something, they can actually have it changed.
Armour lock may be frustrating. But only if you're an idiot. If almost kill a guy and he armour-locks, just take the time to reload. If another guy joins in, knock his shields off and roll a grenade between the two of them. If it's been as long as you insist, the first guy will pop out right before the grenade explodes. Bam. Double kill.
Of course, you try explaining that on the Halo forums and suddenly people are regaling you about your K/D ratio.
It worries me when serious debates are solved with a rifle-measuring contest.
Now. I love Halo, as a series. Halo: Reach is one of my most played games. However, if these changes go ahead, I'm not sure I can keep playing. I know I sound hypocritical, refusing to adapt, but in all fairness, I've gotten accustomed to Reach, and I enjoy it. If I wanted 343's changes, I would go to a used game store, and I would buy Halo 3 real cheap.
Also, they're fucking with the established canon. Why does a prequel have more features than the last chronological one? Armour abilities were experimental and Spartan-IIs had steady, steady hands, so reticle bloom was not a problem in Halo 3. Spartan-IIIs, the playable soldiers in Reach, do not have this upgrade. That is why there is bloom.
So the discussion I put to you - What do you think of the changes? Do you like them, or do you agree with me that the Halo community is a hive of scum and villainy and that anybody who supports this Reach 2.0 is a member of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor?
If you're not a Halo fan, and you're not sure why you clicked the forum link, feel free to add your own complaints or praise for games you're familiar with that for reasons known only to themselves revert to a predecessor.
