EA: Crysis 2 Will Be a "Halo Killer"
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Actually while Modern Warfare 2 might have outsold Halo, Halo is STILL far more iconic overall. Not to mention the fanaticism inherant in the people staying online with Halo 2 to delay the servers going down for the final time and such.
I'm not a big shooter fan, but I instantly recognize Master Chief's armor and a lot of things from Halo, but I couldn't do the same with most of the protaganists/stuff from Modern Warfare.
Honestly I think that for any game to truely "beat" Halo they are going to have to last in the public consciousness as long as Halo did. Nobody can really defeat it simply through release sales, etc...
I'm not a big shooter fan, but I instantly recognize Master Chief's armor and a lot of things from Halo, but I couldn't do the same with most of the protaganists/stuff from Modern Warfare.
Honestly I think that for any game to truely "beat" Halo they are going to have to last in the public consciousness as long as Halo did. Nobody can really defeat it simply through release sales, etc...
The world has turned upside down, with publishers switching everything. Call of Duty took Halo's spot at the top. So Crysis is looking to take......what, maybe the #4 spot or something? Because Halo is probably at #5 as things stand right now.
This is so stupid, Crysis was a over-hyped game that died off quickly after being released even though the original was also slated as a 'Halo' killer, which at least made sense back then, but it failed miserably at it. Halo is over, it is and was the best series of games released for the Xbox 360 but one on one its losing to COD now, and another game from CoD is likely going to mean it takes over Halo's throne as the best SERIES.
Crysis has no chance of beating Halo Reach, and no chance of beating CoD, its just going to be another mediocre FPS game that rips off fifty different games.
Crysis has no chance of beating Halo Reach, and no chance of beating CoD, its just going to be another mediocre FPS game that rips off fifty different games.
Halo isn't #5 best in FPS, at worst its 2nd still. Only COD has effectively really beaten Halo, and at least Halo lasted to the 3rd before people really started to dislike it while COD got that for its 2nd Modern Warfare.
I usually let Halo defense slide, but this is bullshit. 90% of shooters involve a war, setting it in space does not make it original. Space Marines are lifted straight from aliens, even down to Sgt. Apone. The idea of the halos themselves is from Larry Niven's Ringworld books. The vehicles handle like shit, I could never understand why people said the Mako sucked but the Warthog was fun. The biggest flaw was the completely unthreatening enemies. I felt like I was shooting Teletubbies. When those extraterrestrial Care Bears started making cute little noises when I shot them, I realized this was either a parody or made for preteens. Oh, and what exactly is it that makes a game 'epic'? Is it the size of the space you're fighting in, or just the number of flashes happening at once? Because I don't think you really know what that word means.Ninjaghostdog said:
My other gripe with Halo is that it paved the way for regenerating health, which opened the floodgates for every kind of developer hand-holding. I'm not saying all console games are inherently easier(Goldeneye was a *****) but after Halo, the majority of them were. Regenerating health is lazy developers catering to lazy players who can't be assed to backtrack for health or even remember where it was. Developers are afraid the ADHD generation will quit if they make their game too hard, and they'll tell their friends it sucks. So they make sure everybody can limp to the finish line in their own sad time. Games used to be actual antagonists, some of them going so far as to make them impossible to beat if you made the wrong choices. Those are games I can respect.
Now, if you're only talking about multiplayer, Halo is pretty good. Not the best, but still fun. The only gripe I have is the fucking plasma sword.
You can love Halo as much as you want, it won't bother me. But if you call me pretentious for hating it, I'll call you a retard for not playing STALKER instead.
Excuse me? Call of Duty only beat Halo in terms of sales. It has yet to dethrone Halo in terms of actual game quality. From the CoD series, Only Call of Duty 4 had a brilliantly constructed campaign (admittedly, I have played through it at least 30 times), although the Halo series has never had a straight up horrible campaign - although Halo 2 came close - and Modern Warfare 2's campaign can be summed up in three words: explosion, confusion, fail.
Furthermore, not a few people have observed that Call of Duty's multiplayer is fairly generic in terms of gameplay. Yes, it's thrilling and polished to a high sheen, but you don't really GET anything from it that you couldn't get anywhere else. In fact, Perks are really the only reason anyone comes back to play further (and they are admittedly a GOOD reason; Last Stand is simply badass). Halo's multiplayer is (gameplay-wise) the king of online FPSs. Besides having the shooting mechanics that defined console shooters, Halo's multiplayer simply delivers fun where Call of Duty does not. Vehicles? Check. Modding the map with Forge on the fly? Check. Team Oddball, Grifball, and Ninjanaut? Check. My point? Halo offers replayability that Call of Duty simply cannot match. In the end, the ultimate test of a game is whether you keep popping in that game disc for years after it is released (a la Halo 2, whose multiplayer kept thousands of players coming back for six years until Microsoft finally shut down the original Xbox Live). So, yes. Call of Duty may have sales on its side, but Halo is where you have the fun and innovation. Halo is still the game to kill.
P.S. And please. Shut up about realism. Like Yahtzee, I've had enough of it and want my fun back. And Halo delivers in that respect.
Furthermore, not a few people have observed that Call of Duty's multiplayer is fairly generic in terms of gameplay. Yes, it's thrilling and polished to a high sheen, but you don't really GET anything from it that you couldn't get anywhere else. In fact, Perks are really the only reason anyone comes back to play further (and they are admittedly a GOOD reason; Last Stand is simply badass). Halo's multiplayer is (gameplay-wise) the king of online FPSs. Besides having the shooting mechanics that defined console shooters, Halo's multiplayer simply delivers fun where Call of Duty does not. Vehicles? Check. Modding the map with Forge on the fly? Check. Team Oddball, Grifball, and Ninjanaut? Check. My point? Halo offers replayability that Call of Duty simply cannot match. In the end, the ultimate test of a game is whether you keep popping in that game disc for years after it is released (a la Halo 2, whose multiplayer kept thousands of players coming back for six years until Microsoft finally shut down the original Xbox Live). So, yes. Call of Duty may have sales on its side, but Halo is where you have the fun and innovation. Halo is still the game to kill.
P.S. And please. Shut up about realism. Like Yahtzee, I've had enough of it and want my fun back. And Halo delivers in that respect.
Glad to see Crysis developers have already assured their own downfall with ridiculous nonsensical statements. The moment a game prides itself solely upon dethroning another game in the genre, is the moment he has conceded superiority to the aforementioned game. If you game is a technological marvel, which will render all respective gamers in awe, you need not voice publicly that it shall impede upon past glory. We, the gamers, will simply worship it because of how good it is.
Nonetheless, in a technical sense, Halo can never be dethroned. It is the single series to have essentially saved the X-Box gaming console, which was a disaster prior to Halo's release. Halo 2 established the basis for online FPS games, as we know them today. Whilst contesting whether or not the game is the hallmark of the FPS genre is feasible, it is and shall remain the titled franchise of the X-box much in the way Mario is to Nintendo.
Nonetheless, in a technical sense, Halo can never be dethroned. It is the single series to have essentially saved the X-Box gaming console, which was a disaster prior to Halo's release. Halo 2 established the basis for online FPS games, as we know them today. Whilst contesting whether or not the game is the hallmark of the FPS genre is feasible, it is and shall remain the titled franchise of the X-box much in the way Mario is to Nintendo.
I have to admit, I have always enjoyed Halo because of its story, its done so much better and it feels nice and epic compared to some games like Killzone. I think the combat is good and some of the characters are really likable while others are just embarassing. I am a big sucker for storyline though and thats why I love Halo above a lot of other ones, and since Halo DID redefine an entire genre it gets a lot of stick and a lot of defense. Some say it changed it for the better, some say worse, generally whichever side you fall on is whatever you think of the game itself. I enjoyed it but that's 'cause I like big sci-fi games that feel epic, especially since it has an amazing advertising section. But I still think Halo is easily one of the best game series ever made and really has only ever been beaten by COD to being the best (at the moment).
Stalker? Never played it becuase my firend says its amazing, so trying to avoid a hyper's creed.blindthrall said:
Oh bleh! Every new FPS that gets made is claimed to be a Halo or CoD "Killer". And they usually end up being just as shit as the game they're trying to kill!
Less talk, more game. That's what I always say. It makes developers angry, but honestly - talk isn't cheap, it's worthless.