Is Halo really in the Killzone?

[Vlane]

Sorry for misinterpreting then. You are wrong though, strategy is an integral part of middling and advanced Halo play even more so than shooters like Counter-Strike or Call of Duty.

Oh really?

Yes, Counter-Strike has no power weapons to pick up and very little emphasis on "map-control."

Have you ever played CS? I only played it for 3 months but even I know that map control is very important in CS.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Yes, Counter-Strike has no power weapons to pick up and very little emphasis on "map-control."

Yeah, instead you spend your money wisely to get to the power weapon you want. Although power weapons in general are for nubs. Oh, and games with poor controls.

And very little emphasis on "map-control"? Maybe if you're nubbing around on Iceworld pubs, but determining which chokepoints to focus upon was critical to all the maps out there.

One of my best friends was very serious about Halo 3 and would always be watching MLG every chance he got between breaks of playing ranked matches or whatever. I humored his conversations of just how "strategic" Halo 3 is, but the whole time I found it far more hilarious, mediocre, and puerile than stimulating. But then again, that's a theme that runs through that particular game in general.

Maybe Halo 3 is really super strategic for a console shooter. But why bring a PC game into it? It's like comparing kiddy kart racing to F1.

A condescending elitist even towards your best friends? I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Anyway, in Halo it's not only important to control strategic geographical points and objectives but also points where weapons, power-ups and vehicles spawn and in a few maps you even need to defend places where an enemy can destroy a strategic geographical advantage. Add the decisions on what weapons to use and where, what specific tactics are useful on which maps in which places, when and how to utilize vehicles; there's a lot of depth and a lot of options. True a berserkergang can work, but doesn't even that add more depth of strategy?

Counter-Strike certainly has developed more strategy/counter-strategy play but it has as might know been around for nearly ten years.

One last thing, just because you can't quite get the hang of a gamepad or "that fucking sniper" killed you too many times doesn't mean that those who use either are inherently noobs.

EDIT:

Sorry for misinterpreting then. You are wrong though, strategy is an integral part of middling and advanced Halo play even more so than shooters like Counter-Strike or Call of Duty.

Oh really?

Yes, Counter-Strike has no power weapons to pick up and very little emphasis on "map-control."

Have you ever played CS? I only played it for 3 months but even I know that map control is very important in CS.

Honestly I haven't, but I have watched many high-level competitive tournaments and observation of their tactics along with expert commentary have lead me to believe that map-control is significantly less important in Counter-Strike compared to Halo. Map-control is obviously important in any competitive FPS but from what I've saw it is not as critical a deciding factor in CS. In my observation it's more about movement and adapting the plan of attack or defense on the fly based on the enemies' own movements.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

You just described every modern FPS out there.

Oo really? When did CoD4 get the vehicle update?

Yes, most of those options exist in all multiplayer shooters. But most multiplayer shooters don't have so many.

When I had an Xbox 360 for 3 months, I did embarrassingly well in both Halo 3 and COD4. Embarrassing as in whenever I played, I played drunk (that's the only way I could try to ignore the inferior experience...and my friend/roommate was in one of our school's fraternities; you can't play bro games without bros!) and on games and controls that weren't my anywhere near my preference and still ended up in the top three in nearly all the matches I played online.

But just because I play well with a gamepad doesn't mean I have to dogmatically be utterly blind to how hilariously poorly suited it is for first person shooting.

I assume that during those three months you used a gamertag other than the one linked to your profile which has only (briefly) played Fallout 3 and GTA4 which you will happily provide to the populace to confirm that you weren't bullshitting just now?

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

I played as a guest on my friend's account.

And did not use the free month of Xbox Live that comes with the registration of each of the first three gamertags on the Xbox 360 that you apparently owned?

Forgive me if I mistakenly suspect that the majority of your life experiences that have been presented the Escapist are outright fabrications.

But I'll give you the benefit of doubt, what is that friends gamertag?

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

It was his Xbox 360 which he got at launch (so that option wasn't available to me...hell, he didn't even mention it to me); he brought it over to/left it at my place because of my better TV/way better internet connection.

Actually the option was open to you, being unaware of it is understandable though.

Haha, I respect my friend's wishes for privacy from weird online stalkers. I hope you do too.

Alright then, your improbable situation remains shrouded in doubt.

 

[Fire Daemon]

Well, Halo 3 does have the veto option so I don't see where you get "Unlike in Halo 3 people can Vote this map sucks for this gametype."

You're primary lament seems to be the lack of tanks in large maps and the power of the Sp'laser (despite it being only slightly better than the homing rockets of Halo 2). In other words you dislike how much more balanced Halo 3 is.

No, hear me out. In most of Halo 2's maps there was no clear dividing line, no impassable barrier that cut the maps in two. With this design philosophy your team can control a very small number of strategic locations and thereby control the entire map. In Halo 3 most maps have a clear barrier between two distinct sides. In The Pit it's the middle wall, in Valhalla it's the hill, in Snowbound it's the ground (surface and interior sides), in in High Ground it's the wall, et cetera. In Ghost Town this division is less strict, the middle building blocks LOS from either base but it isn't a divider as the exterior path goes all the way around, put some commanding long-range weapons (a sniper or team of BR's) on two corners that can see each other and you very nearly have total map control.

Now CoD4 maps are much like Ghost Town or Midship or Headlong. No funneling, LOS blocking divider. Just a landscape with features on it.

Not to say you're wrong about anything. But you expected Halo 3 to be more Halo 2 and when it turned out to be a new angle on the tried and true formula you rejected it and found CoD4, a game more like Halo 2 than most casual observers would think.

There's more about weapon balance and such but the fundamental difference in map design seems to be your major grip.

First of all I have to say that you contradict yourself here. You claim that Halo 3 is more balanced yet you also claim a team can easily win by picking up the sniper and a couple of BRs on Ghost town, shouldn't by your logic those corners, the sniper rifle and those BR be a little bit balanced if thats all you need to win? But yes, I did reject Halo 3 because it removed the tried and true formula and opted for something different. That something different wasn't fun. Well sure, maybe its better for MLG and the hardcore clanz but staying in the one spot for ten minutes is annoying and boring. A good game is one where the players are constantly moving and changing tactics rather then staying in the one spot. When the payers move and change tactics the gameplay is less repetitive and different, more interesting battles erupt. Snowbound for example has some really fun battle between the two bases with one side having the Laser and the other the sniper (the sniper usually wins) and a couple of BR and Carbines. Thats a fun battle, I enjoy that. But of course it isn't an easy battle to win when compared to hanging out in basement and waiting for the enemy to come to you.

CoD4 does not have these moments. There is no fighting people who hang out in corners, its about fighting people in the opposite building or on the hill or behind the wall or whatever. I guess I just prefer that sort of gameplay.

Frankly, I'm reminded of the Arby 'n' the Chief episode called Showdown where the guy who's "MLG" plays by hiding in the corner with the Rocket Launcher and the Sword. While its really easy to take that guy out (especially in a 1v1 gametype) it is still really crappy gameplay. In my opinion anyway.

Thats my opinion on why the maps in Halo 3 are not as good as they could be. I'm not saying that I hate Halo 3 or anything like that, just that some of the maps play poorly. Some of the maps play gametypes that they shouldn't.

EDIT: Interesting argument going on here. Disregard this post I suppose.

 

[Bobkat1252]

Killzone 2 isn't a Halo killer, Halo Wars is. Wait, let me explain.

Even if Ensemble manage to pull a miracle out of their collective arsehole and make a functional console RTS, the game is still going to be replacing the run and gun style of Halo that makes the bulk of its fans love it with a calm and methodical pace that requires actual thinking - be honest, how many of the fratboys will really stick around after that? With the name Halo stuck onto a game they really don't like, they drop the series. Thus, Halo is killed by Halo Wars.

That sir, is a brilliant deduction and as a Halo fan, its something that I actually hope for. Removing the fratboy and child populations from the Halo franchise will be godsend. Hopefully it will scare them off so that Halo 3: ODST's matchmaking will be a cleaner, more friendly place.

 

[John Stalvern]

I'll believe the hype when it comes out. Until then, I'll be wracking my brain to figure out how the plot could be more generic.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Spoiler: snip

First of all I have to say that you contradict yourself here. You claim that Halo 3 is more balanced yet you also claim a team can easily win by picking up the sniper and a couple of BRs on Ghost town, shouldn't by your logic those corners, the sniper rifle and those BR be a little bit balanced if thats all you need to win? But yes, I did reject Halo 3 because it removed the tried and true formula and opted for something different. That something different wasn't fun. Well sure, maybe its better for MLG and the hardcore clanz but staying in the one spot for ten minutes is annoying and boring. A good game is one where the players are constantly moving and changing tactics rather then staying in the one spot. When the payers move and change tactics the gameplay is less repetitive and different, more interesting battles erupt. Snowbound for example has some really fun battle between the two bases with one side having the Laser and the other the sniper (the sniper usually wins) and a couple of BR and Carbines. Thats a fun battle, I enjoy that. But of course it isn't an easy battle to win when compared to hanging out in basement and waiting for the enemy to come to you.

CoD4 does not have these moments. There is no fighting people who hang out in corners, its about fighting people in the opposite building or on the hill or behind the wall or whatever. I guess I just prefer that sort of gameplay.

Frankly, I'm reminded of the Arby 'n' the Chief episode called Showdown where the guy who's "MLG" plays by hiding in the corner with the Rocket Launcher and the Sword. While its really easy to take that guy out (especially in a 1v1 gametype) it is still really crappy gameplay. In my opinion anyway.

Thats my opinion on why the maps in Halo 3 are not as good as they could be. I'm not saying that I hate Halo 3 or anything like that, just that some of the maps play poorly. Some of the maps play gametypes that they shouldn't.

You sort of misread my case. The meat of the matter here is you like Halo 2 and played it a lot (I assume). Then got exited for Halo 3 because you loved Halo 2 and wanted more. Then you found the design philosophy of Halo 3 multiplayer to be fundamentally different (not better/worse, different) and didn't like it as much as before. Many people were the same, and many like you found CoD4. A game that was like you wanted Halo 3 to be, more Halo 2 (at least as far as multiplayer).

I happen to like Halo 3 more, while you like Halo 2 more. Not a problem, I just like to know why.

EDIT: Interesting argument going on here. Disregard this post I suppose.

I'm done arguing with Eggo, don't know why I ever bothered (probably because I like arguing, but with a person not some sort of unyielding psuedolith).

Removing the fratboy and child populations from the Halo franchise will be godsend. Hopefully it will scare them off so that Halo 3: ODST's matchmaking will be a cleaner, more friendly place.

Don't get your hopes up, ODST will be multiplayer compatible with Halo 3.

 

[hippo24]

I'll believe the hype when it comes out. Until then, I'll be wracking my brain to figure out how the plot could be more generic.

Im not sure but since the Helghast are modeled off the Nazis from WW2 does that make it another d-day/WW2 game?

Look at the E3 (or invasion) trailer and tell me if you can see the similarities between that and a normal D-DAY landing

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/44158.html