How can Anniversary be sloppy? It's basically the first Halo with better graphics and a few new things added like achievements, skulls, and the fascinating terminals.Samus Aran but a man said:
Is Halo slowly losing its steam?
- Thread starter pulse2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Don't get me wrong, i really enjoyed HALO, but I always thought it was overhyped. It did a lot of things very well, such as appealing visually diverse environments and characters, but honestly, after seeing the later games, it may be time for it to taper off, die, and be replaced by something new.
Sadly after seeing what the X-Box generally produces i have to say im not looking forward to another bland brown shooter.
Sadly after seeing what the X-Box generally produces i have to say im not looking forward to another bland brown shooter.
I was left dissatisfied because nothing was improved the original Halo. I know what you're thinking, but if just visually remaking was their goal, they should have aimed higher. Upgrading the visuals doesn't make a game modern all of a sudden and 10 years on, the gameplay of Halo hasn't exactly aged brilliantly (too many corridors).Sonic Doctor said:
My friends and I all encountered connection issues with the co-op (Australia) and the multi-player is a map pack for Reach rather than a throwback to the original, failing to capture the feel of that classic game.
the original was one of the first games I truly fell in love with as a kid, so I really wish they put more effort into this. This could have been an awesome remake, rather than a decent "visual enhancement".
^ yeah I felt like writing a review
I don't think there is any denying that it has lost at least some of its steam but just look at when Halo came out, it was only game doing what it was doing and it did it damn good. Now there are a TON of games coming out that are a lot like Halo, the FPS genre is flooded with choices, so naturally some people are going to choose other things. I think the true test of whether Halo can stay on or near the top is Halo 4. A new trilogy, a new company, a new story. Reach was stagnant in my opinion, it really didn't do anything new for the most part. Basically either Halo 4 will find new ways to amaze people or the number of fans will dwindle till it is just fanboys, which honestly would still be enough people to support 5 and 6. The community is still huge, it just isn't completely dominant like it used to be.
First off, don't feel like you have to explain why you wrote a small bit, it is a forum of discussion after all, so you don't have to replay with just yeses and nos or simple one or two liners.Samus Aran but a man said:
I didn't realize how new you were to the forum, welcome, stay out of the basement, and familiarize yourself with the forum rules: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct
Get involved, join some forum groups, make friends, find and avatar you would like to represent you, and start earning some fun badges. I would have to say that The Escapist is my internet home, for socializing, as well as entertainment.
Now onto your comment:
Anniversary isn't sloppy in those respects. The point of Anniversary wasn't that they were doing a remake, just a remaster. It of course was a way to celebrate the anniversary of the start of the series, they didn't want to tweak gameplay like you were looking for because they wanted to keep that part of the game the same, the way the fans knew and loved it. Plus, changing the level design wouldn't work, because it would mess with the flow of the story and game. Every little event was planned for certain locations and times. The Library shows the sheer size and scope of the Halo installation.
Besides, what do you mean by too many corridors? Do you mean that the levels were too long, or that you got lost? Most levels had arrows incorporated into the corridors so that players wouldn't get lost.
Next I will point out (US here), pretty much everybody will encounter connection issues. Everybody I know encountered them as well, but of course it isn't always a fault of the Live/company end. Heck, I had connection issues for more than a month and then finally found out I had a faulty cable line splitter.
Lastly, making the multiplayer maps a part of the Reach wasn't a bad idea. It kept the Halo game community together by making it so players didn't have to think about having another ranking/multiplayer system. Players could play the remastered old maps and still earn credits and ranks. It was appropriate.
I also feel that it did capture the feel of the classic game. I'm betting that you didn't get to play the classic game types, where there are no armor abilities and it's just simple run and gun, just like the original Halo multiplayer from 1 to 3. But that really never mattered to me, since I prefer the style of the new Reach style of multiplayer, it brings more variety in game types and some strategy to the table.
Heh, many RTS games had it before Halo or Driver. My point is the use of it within a particular genre.Reaper195 said:
Reach is always talked about as a total Human massacre and a SPARTAN graveyard, the tagline of the game was "from the beginning you know the end" What the Hell did you think they were going to do with the characters before you popped the disk in? That's the idea, they ARE dying for no reason, they're being massacred by a technologically superior opponent, but they're doing everything that they can to stop them in the process, but even though they win individual battles and slaughter thousands of aliens with their bare hands, in the end they only make a small difference. The pacing was fine, you go from small skirmishes to bigger battles and all the while the planet grows more and more barren. In the end, it becomes clear that with the exception of your team and a handful of marines here and there that you're the only ones left and you dedicate yourselves for one last mission, one that will give humanity a spark of hope. Don't get what you're problem with the characters is here when the main one of the original trilogy was an emotionless brick, don't get me wrong I love Chief do death but if you're criticizing Halo characters he should be your first target, Arbiter was far more three dimensional, as was all of Nobel Team...minus six.LastGreatBlasphemer said:
As you can clearly read I made a collective summary.OhJohnNo said:You seriously think Halo is greyish-brown?Antwerp Caveman said:Typing on an iPad, gimme a break.PleasantKenobi said:
Ofcourse Skyrim is an awesome game, but it's far too overhyped, like that campaign they had to name children something like Dragonborn for free games.
Games like CoD and Halo, the basic shooters and sportsgames like PES and Fifa and Madden only sell well because of marketing and popularity. Never on their own merit.
This leads to high sales which leads to friends of buyers to buy the game too for multiplayer or through a local cool factor or maybe even peer pressure. This leads to even higher sales which leads to giant profit which leads to publishers ordering more of similar games which leads to far less variation and more of similar or the same games (CoD vs. Battlefield and MoH). This is survival of the fittest, really. Until only tall, blonde and blue eyes are left, or in this case, grayish brown with chainsaw rifles and cover walls
I'd argue that Halo has plenty of its own merits. Brilliant enemy AI, lovely aesthetics, a rather compelling story (though this is easily the most subjective item here), smooth controls, seamless integration of vehicle sections into normal gameplay, and a really, really good soundtrack.
To refyte some of your statements:
+Halo CE came right before the wave of GoW, so I'll give Halo that it was indeed varied in colors.
- The AI of Halo is legendarily bad, this is pretty common knowledge.
+The levels of Halo were very varied
- but within those individual levels were hardly any details, green square for grassy field and a gray square for a rockface/mountain, it was very far behind in leveldesign on the other games of the time.
+The controls worked, shooting was do-able and I tried to do as much as possible in the warthog.
-Console shootercontrols were already perfected in Goldeneye on N64, 6 years before, so Halo just doesn't deserve any credit there.
-Debated the soundtrack already, completely a matter of taste.
- Master Chief is a faceless style-less protagonist that shoots where pointed, at least the alien from the 2nd one had a motive and was more fun to play.
couold not have said it better myself. And the only thing Halo had going for it was that it was fun to play with friends...thats the only thing ive heard thats good about it ever and having recently played the rerelease i have to say that the level design was/is horrendous, and it is a very repetitive experience adn people say cod is bad.Robert Ewing said:
Antwerp Caveman said:As you can clearly read I made a collective summary.OhJohnNo said:You seriously think Halo is greyish-brown?Antwerp Caveman said:Typing on an iPad, gimme a break.PleasantKenobi said:
Ofcourse Skyrim is an awesome game, but it's far too overhyped, like that campaign they had to name children something like Dragonborn for free games.
Games like CoD and Halo, the basic shooters and sportsgames like PES and Fifa and Madden only sell well because of marketing and popularity. Never on their own merit.
This leads to high sales which leads to friends of buyers to buy the game too for multiplayer or through a local cool factor or maybe even peer pressure. This leads to even higher sales which leads to giant profit which leads to publishers ordering more of similar games which leads to far less variation and more of similar or the same games (CoD vs. Battlefield and MoH). This is survival of the fittest, really. Until only tall, blonde and blue eyes are left, or in this case, grayish brown with chainsaw rifles and cover walls
I'd argue that Halo has plenty of its own merits. Brilliant enemy AI, lovely aesthetics, a rather compelling story (though this is easily the most subjective item here), smooth controls, seamless integration of vehicle sections into normal gameplay, and a really, really good soundtrack.
To refyte some of your statements:
+Halo CE came right before the wave of GoW, so I'll give Halo that it was indeed varied in colors.
- The AI of Halo is legendarily bad, this is pretty common knowledge.
+The levels of Halo were very varied
- but within those individual levels were hardly any details, green square for grassy field and a gray square for a rockface/mountain, it was very far behind in leveldesign on the other games of the time.
+The controls worked, shooting was do-able and I tried to do as much as possible in the warthog.
-Console shootercontrols were already perfected in Goldeneye on N64, 6 years before, so Halo just doesn't deserve any credit there.
-Debated the soundtrack already, completely a matter of taste.
- Master Chief is a faceless style-less protagonist that shoots where pointed, at least the alien from the 2nd one had a motive and was more fun to play.
(emphasis mine)
...Ohhh. Wait. You're referring to the allied AI. Yeah, I'll come out and say that that is easily Halo's biggest flaw, point conceded.
However, I was originally referring to the enemy AI, which, if anything, was legendarily good. Still is, in fact. The Covenant would use tactics, lay traps, and generally fight smart of their own accord, without the need for the heavy scripting of games like Call of Duty etc. Not to mention that each of the alien species had a clear personality which you could deduce from the way their AI behaved. This, combined with the big open levels, basically meant that no playthrough would ever turn out the same way twice, and it's what was most praised about the game's AI.
OK, now on to your other points.
* The comment about level design looks more like a comment about graphics to my eyes, unless I'm reading it incorrectly. Could you elaborate?
* Goldeneye is still reputed to have had some problems with its Z-axis. Still, I wasn't arguing in terms of innovation - more just quality.
* Missed your point on the soundtrack, but debating soundtracks is mostly pointless anyway (though trust me, I have plenty of reasons for liking it beyond "it sounds nice").
* Master Chief is indeed a faceless protagonist who shoots where pointed. So is Gordon Freeman, so was Samus Aran for a while (until Metroid Fusion gave her a *proper* personality, which Metroid: Other M then proceeded to ignore). I can understand if you don't like this fill-in-your-own-personality kind of character, even if I personally don't have much of a problem with it (though I don't particularly like it either).
Simple: Call of Duty copied Halo's formula to a T, changed the setting, added a couple of features (air-strikes and ironsights), and in doing so, managed to uproot the multiplayer fanbase, and take it for itself.
You don't need to take my word for it though; just check out how Halo: Reach's online playerbase peaked for a couple of weeks, and then PLUMMETED at the same time CoD4.3(Black Ops) launched. It was just too much of a coincidence to ignore.
Besides that, the mechanical similarities between the two series are remarkable (going well beyond "they're both shooters with regenerating health").
But CoD4.x took it one step further and added grind to their online multiplayer to cement their dominance. Even if a player were to become bored with the online component, they aren't going to leave until they hit top level to unlock all of the goodies because of Skinner Logic.
You don't need to take my word for it though; just check out how Halo: Reach's online playerbase peaked for a couple of weeks, and then PLUMMETED at the same time CoD4.3(Black Ops) launched. It was just too much of a coincidence to ignore.
Besides that, the mechanical similarities between the two series are remarkable (going well beyond "they're both shooters with regenerating health").
But CoD4.x took it one step further and added grind to their online multiplayer to cement their dominance. Even if a player were to become bored with the online component, they aren't going to leave until they hit top level to unlock all of the goodies because of Skinner Logic.
True, I see what you mean now.PleasantKenobi said:
Just out of curiosity, where there any saved film features in RTS that were as...cinematic...as Halo and Drivers? Or was it simply the ability to replay a match and move the overhead camera wherever on the map without the fog of war?
I just think halo has lost its feel. Halo 1 and 2 had amazing campaigns. Halo 3 had multiplayer that was incredible. Halo Reach is a good game but just doesn't have the same feel to it as the others. I liked halo better then CoD because CoD is just more serious and people don't seem to play for fun. I mean when in CoD can you fly a mongoose of a cliff because someone launched you with a brute shot and then land on someones face?
Halo reach feels more competitive then the older Halo games.
Halo reach feels more competitive then the older Halo games.
I actually reckon they were the AI was the best in CE (like pretty much everything else...).OhJohnNo said:
Every fight was at least a little different. They would fall back when hit and cover injured squadmates. One group might stay in one spot and pin you down while another tries to flank you, or they might just throw a couple grenades and rush you while you're still dazed.
I dunno if you could call it brilliant or anything, but it was pretty cool and gave a pretty unique feeling to every engagement and the gameplay as a whole.
In 3 and Reach however they moreso just have the illusion of intelligence. You may see a bunch of enemies making their way through the map towards you, keeping spaced out and alert and just generally moving around in such a way you can sort of say, 'Huh, that's pretty cool.'
But when you actually engage them they just begin acting out a very simple and predictable pattern of behaviour. I've played thousands of Firefight matches now, so this isn't just a mindless rant.
Grunts waddle up, stand still and grenade or shoot for a bit, and die. Jackals sit back, shoot for a bit from a longish distance, then die. Hunters do some stupid slow strafing crap, shoot every now and then with a great big gun and chase after you a bit if you get close. Brutes are basically Grunts with more health, and grenades.
The only ones which are even remotely interesting in combat are Elites, which basically act as a much less dangerous and much more boring version of the one's in CE.
Though even then the series as whole probably does have some of the best AI in the industry. In fact, the only FPS games I can think of that have AI about as cool as it are Half Life 2 (though the level design and the extremely short life expectancies of enemies pretty much kill it), the original Operation Flashpoint and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
-
Halo is still huge but it is kind of gradually losing it's popularity, but upon release Halo 4 will still be a huge 'critical' and commercial success regardless of whether it sucks or not. It probably will but it obviously hasn't come out yet, so I'll reserve judgement 'til launch.
I'm just glad Bungie might finally actually end up working on something else now.
Well for the most part, it isn't common. The most important replay feature in any game is probably the replays feature in Starcraft and Starcraft II due to the massive competitive scene. For those very reasons, the replay feature isn't very flashy. The games themselves don't allow for very cinematic camera movement outside of mods.Reaper195 said:
Something like Dawn of War though, which is based more upon visceral spectacle than honing skill has a must more robust replay feature as far as camera is concerned. But nothing like the editor on hand in Halo.
