Halo 4 Opinion

[ZehMadScientist]

I'm excited, that's for sure.

I take all the good reviews with a huge grain of salt, but from what I've seen of it, with all its multiplayer and Spartan Ops content, I daresay I'm going to tremendously enjoy Halo 4.

 

[Shocksplicer]

I've made it clear on the Review thread just how angry Reach made me, so I won't get into that

I think Halo 4 will have a nice aesthetic to it. The outdoor locations look verdant and varied, while the forerunner architecture looks distinctive and cool, creating a nice juxtaposition.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

snip

halo 2 is the bad one, like the im pretty sure the halo community decided that
like the dmc one withe dmc 2 , that that was the bad one , horrendously glitchy dodgey story and a buch of other problems, 3 was a vast improvement, i though we decided on this, were you not at the meeting.

and i dont think so , i think its fine

In campaign, sure, but Halo 2's multiplayer was superb. It more than balances out any shortcomings in the single player.

 

[Sandjube]

To everyone saying Halo 2 is bad, why are you all so wrong? It boggles my mind.

 

[Deathlyphil]

the arbiter was the only good part of that story, hell i would have loved awhole arbiter story

Same here. I was gutted that he was such a minor character in Halo 3. But I guess those that shouted loudest get want they want. Every freaking time.

 

[Awexsome]

I'll need to wait until it releases to judge the campaign. It's supposed to have a lot more tie ins with the books so as a diehard Halo fan that's the one thing I really was disappointed in with Reach.

The multiplayer has been phenomenal for every Halo game so I have at least enough faith from the previews that 343i will continue that trend taking the features of Reach while going for more of a classic trilogy feel with mechanics.

Firefight was always pretty meh compared to other games version of "survival" type modes IMO so the Spartan Ops co-op mode might just be the thing that fits Halo's niche since it was always a very strong in the storyline department compared to other FPS games and the story based quick missions could be just what it needed.

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

I've been hearing plenty of good things, and the copy I pre-ordered was shipped yesterday. Should arrive soon. Before launch.
It's a present for my dad, since he's a huge Halo fanboy.
I kinda want to order a copy for myself...

 

[Arslan Aladeen]

I'd say since Halo 2 the single player campaign has just been an soulless, endless, recycle of the same set pieces, over and over again. The mistake Bungie made, to me, is that Master Chief cannot carry the weight of a game alone - story wise - because he is soooo incredibly dull as a character. What makes this game for me, and ultimately parting with my hard earned cash, is that they have shifted the story focus to Cortina and extending her narrative to the Chief, allowing him to finally grow as a character.

It's what I have been waiting for since Halo 1, and pleading for since the franchise soured with Halo 3 to me, I cannot wait for the release!

I never really cared for the Halo series on 360. Similar to what God Of War 3 did, it seemed like 2 finished without a proper conclusion and they stretched out the story way past what it needed to be. And that God awful Cortana level. I feel like that rivals the Library level from the first. ODST was sorta 'whatever' to me. It tried some interesting things, but it felt like what it was, an add on that they charged full price for. And Reach felt pretty unsatisfying to me as well. At least 3 had some cool scarab battles. In place of that, Reach has, turret sequences. Yay... And maybe I'm in the minority, but it also felt rushed to me.

 

[Awexsome]

I'd say since Halo 2 the single player campaign has just been an soulless, endless, recycle of the same set pieces, over and over again. The mistake Bungie made, to me, is that Master Chief cannot carry the weight of a game alone - story wise - because he is soooo incredibly dull as a character. What makes this game for me, and ultimately parting with my hard earned cash, is that they have shifted the story focus to Cortina and extending her narrative to the Chief, allowing him to finally grow as a character.

It's what I have been waiting for since Halo 1, and pleading for since the franchise soured with Halo 3 to me, I cannot wait for the release!

ODST was sorta 'whatever' to me. It tried some interesting things, but it felt like what it was, an add on that they charged full price for.

I loved ODST for what it was and blame Microsoft for being the ones knowing they could get away with charging full price for what pretty much was a Halo 3 expansion pack. I don't have any way to prove it but I'm willing to believe that that was what the final straw for Bungie when they bought away their independence and were willing to give up the Halo IP entirely to do it.

And Reach felt pretty unsatisfying to me as well. At least 3 had some cool scarab battles. In place of that, Reach has, turret sequences. Yay... And maybe I'm in the minority, but it also felt rushed to me.

I don't think it was rushed, but I do agree that for the biggest battle in the universe's history it... wasn't so big. I for one prefer the Fall of Reach's version with hundreds of ships doing battle above the planet and loads of Spartans in the battle.

I think that since it was the first game Bungie made not directly in the main trilogy for a while they wanted to create Noble team so they wouldn't be bound by nearly as much already established history like they were for their past few games. I kinda would've prefered them closely following the book's version but I still thought it was very good.

 

[Arslan Aladeen]

And Reach felt pretty unsatisfying to me as well. At least 3 had some cool scarab battles. In place of that, Reach has, turret sequences. Yay... And maybe I'm in the minority, but it also felt rushed to me.

I don't think it was rushed, but I do agree that for the biggest battle in the universe's history it... wasn't so big. I for one prefer the Fall of Reach's version with hundreds of ships doing battle above the planet and loads of Spartans in the battle.

I think that since it was the first game Bungie made not directly in the main trilogy for a while they wanted to create Noble team so they wouldn't be bound by nearly as much already established history like they were for their past few games. I kinda would've prefered them closely following the book's version but I still thought it was very good.

The reason I say it felt rushed was I encountered quite a bit of slow down and bugs. One that sticks out in my mind is where sometimes when I'm in a vehicle and hit another vehicle, my vehicle starts flying up into the air and going in circles as if it was caught in a tornado. I will give Reach credit for one thing though, they brought back the elites as the main enemies. The Brutes seemed so dull to fight against in comparison. I always think it's funny when a game introduces a new enemy as the bigger threat, yet I find the older ones more dangerous, at least in terms of actual gameplay.

 

[mortalsatsuma]

I loved HALO CE but every HALO game after that has bored the hell out of me. HALO 2 was ok but technically, a total mess. I have never seen worse texture pop-in than in that game and some of the AI (the brutes specifically) were just broken. Halo 3 added literally nothing new except for shiny graphics and ODST I don't know how Bungie managed to fuck that up. It was a fantastic idea, taking the spotlight off of the frankly boring Master Chief. However the story and pacing was atrocious and the decision to introduce firefight but not let it utilise matchmaking just baffled the hell out of me. On the subject of the story, I could have written a better story line than them. Halo Reach had an equally boring story. None of the characters were developed in any kind of depth, except for Cortana and Captain Keyes and only then if you'd played the other games. The multiplayer is fun though and me and a friend have had hours of fun dominating people from a Warthog.

Halo 4 seems to have totally lost it's identity. Irregardless of whether it first invented the 'power armoured space marine' aesthetic, It has totally lost it's identity, it's just caught up in a world of games just like it. As I said to a friend earlier who adores HALO If it wasn't for the title HALO in HALO 4, it would not be getting even half the review scores or praise it is getting now. It has changed little to nothing since Halo 2. In my opinion, and quite frankly it's not difficult to see why Bungie has handed over the reigns to 343 Industries as they have made more money than the entire planet earns in a year. They don't need to innovate, they can just let the game stagnate, as they have been doing for some years now and they'll still make a killing just because they produce a sub-par COD clone and stick the words HALO on the disc case.

I think what really irritates though is how 343 like Bungie haven't changed anything between games, except Chiefs armour (and how the hell does he do that when he's in cryo?) in fact, as far as i can tell, they're just copying COD with the 'Perks' system.

As a final note, some of the game reviews are just a joke. IGN, pfft. don't even bother. They've either been bribed or they just have no sense of a what originality is. The guy who reviewed HALO 4 for then was so excited I thought he was going to upload footage after the review of him shagging the disk. The only roughly sensible review I have watched was on this very website. At lest the guy has the brains to say it's not a spectacular game. unlike IGN and every other reviewer.

Anyway, apologies for the wall of text but this is something that would make me pull my hair out if i had any. To summarise, I haven't always hated HALO. I adored HALO CE but the rest were just terrible and have nothing original or imaginative about them at all past HALO 2. Of course, this is opinion so don't get mad if your opinion differs to mine.

To cap off, I would say none of the games (except HALO:ODST and HALO REACH) are bad per-say, just that they have absolutely nothing unique and interesting about them with Bugie's only saving grace being HALO CE, and that's what got them into this unimaginative and unoriginal mess.

 

[Korten12]

Halo 4 seems to have totally lost it's identity. Irregardless of whether it first invented the 'power armoured space marine' aesthetic, It has totally lost it's identity, it's just caught up in a world of games just like it. As I said to a friend earlier who adores HALO If it wasn't for the title HALO in HALO 4, it would not be getting even half the review scores or praise it is getting now. It has changed little to nothing since Halo 2. In my opinion, and quite frankly it's not difficult to see why Bungie has handed over the reigns to 343 Industries as they have made more money than the entire planet earns in a year. They don't need to innovate, they can just let the game stagnate, as they have been doing for some years now and they'll still make a killing just because they produce a sub-par COD clone and stick the words HALO on the disc case.

How so? You don't seem to give any examples to back up your statements. You claim it's just a Cod Clone, but never give any other explains other then the Perk system which CoD was not the first game to have perks, just what popularized it.

Also it's not getting good review scores for having Halo in the title, it getting good reviews scores... and brace for it..!

IT'S A GOOD GAME.

Yeah I know it's hard to imagine, it is for a lot of people who believe everything is paid for.

I think what really irritates though is how 343 like Bungie haven't changed anything between games, except Chiefs armour (and how the hell does he do that when he's in cryo?) in fact, as far as i can tell, they're just copying COD with the 'Perks' system.

Okay..? So they keep making Halo games that play like Halo? How else would you like them to change it? Most other drastic changes would make it no longer be Halo. It sticks to what it knows. Hell the developers even stated, they're being Evolutionary, not Revolutionary. Building upon what they have and polishing the hell out of it rather then adding new stuff for the sake of adding new stuff.

As a final note, some of the game reviews are just a joke. IGN, pfft. don't even bother. They've either been bribed or they just have no sense of a what originality is. The guy who reviewed HALO 4 for then was so excited I thought he was going to upload footage after the review of him shagging the disk. The only roughly sensible review I have watched was on this very website. At lest the guy has the brains to say it's not a spectacular game. unlike IGN and every other reviewer.

Just wanted to basically summerize this:

"Every review that says a game is good that I think isn't good is PAID FOR."

Logic, your post makes none, at least this part.

 

[In Search of Username]

I dunno, everything from Halo 2 onwards (with the exception of ODST, which was different but in a bad way) has looked pretty much like an identical rehash to me. Never noticed much of this unique flair you're talking about.

 

[Erttheking]

I have no freaking idea what to think about the overall quality. I haven't watched any leaks and the various reception that I've heard put it anywhere from the best Halo game yet to a knockoff clone of another game cut down. Personally I'd like to believe the former with the high amount of new content, but for the moment I just wait until the game comes out so that I can make my own decisions.