If I start a campaign level in Call of Duty 4 (This applies to most, but not all of them), I immediately feel annoyed that the game has thrown my into a situation which doesn't seem to make sense to me.
That is where I'm different. When I start a game, like Halo 2, and the first level is the exact same as Halo 1, it pisses me off. Ok, for the fanboys, it isn't EXACTLY the same, but a tutorial ship level then the ship gets attacked is close enough to the exact same. Then, the way they advertised Halo 2... "The battle has come to Earth", they forgot to add "for 20 minutes". I found the single player pretty repetitive and boring for the most part with zero replay value. Multiplayer was just boring and annoying. Shields completely ruined it.
. First of all this piece is poorly written, I'm sorry, you obviously have put a lot of effort into it, but the language and the way it's presented often make it difficult to fully extract your points because you constantly backtrack and create whole paragraphs describing something that could have been said in a single line, your argument needn't be half as long as it is because there's no real depth there.
. First of all your first long section is pretty much bullshit - you assume the player wishes to know exactly where everything is, and how the mechanics work - the fact that in Call of Duty enemies would not spawn in the same place twice, and the fact the mechanics forced the player to push up, lead to a unique and interesting gameplay style - there is no "strategy" to the Call of Duty gameplay as your misguided mind often perceives, rather the game is simply an action game - that's what it did well, it forced the player to push up avoiding randomly spawning enemies because it's what the target audience found fun.
Your main quarrel with this system seems to be the idea that you are not certain where they will spawn and therefore cannot prepare for it. I'm sorry, but does that seem pretty stupid to you? The game doesn't want you to know where the enemies spawn every time, else there would be no replay value and the player could memorize where each enemy spawned - the system worked to a degree. If anything you should have criticized the numbers that spawned rather than the fact the parameters are not always the same.
Your complaints with the narrative however, are to a degree true, but you forget it's a video game and therefore it does not have to obey the laws of reality, it's an action game that allows the player to fill a persona but at the same time shepherds them through an experience - there's nothing wrong with that system.
However, it could be argued that Halo's system is flawed because it allows the player to simply sit back and pick enemies off, not the point of an action game. The fact the player knows how many enemies will be around which given corner could lead to boredom on a second or third playthrough - both systems have pros and cons you failed to recognize.
Sentient6 said:
None of the Halo games are bad, but they are not really good either. Halo1 was a big step for console shooters, but not shooters in general. Halo 3 - well, it's like Yahtzee said - it's average, and the only remarkable thing about it how far it's stuck up it's own ass. (the man sure has a way with words...).
Good job in engaging with what the OP was talking about [/sarcasm]...Did you even read the OP?
Wardog13 said:
The big battle scene when you are going to Halo's control room comes to mind when I think of the big set piece battles in Halo, and the part of Modern Warfare 2 in Brazil comes to mind when I think of CoD's random spawning. Whe I compare the two I had much less frustration with Halo because I didn't have fuckers shooting me from the place I just cleared.
A very good "review" (for lack of a better word) that summarizes my feelings as well. In the Call of Duty games you are not a superior officer but instead you are a soldier in a squad that is supposedly the best in the world....why then do you have to kill nearly every enemy and babysit your fellow squadmates to victory? In Halo on the other hand it basically informs you that you are the only thing between victory and defeat and that without you humanity falls. You go into a situation like that automatically assuming the marines are retards and can get into the correct mindset in order to kick ass.
If I start a campaign level in Call of Duty 4 (This applies to most, but not all of them), I immediately feel annoyed that the game has thrown my into a situation which doesn't seem to make sense to me.
That is where I'm different. When I start a game, like Halo 2, and the first level is the exact same as Halo 1, it pisses me off. Ok, for the fanboys, it isn't EXACTLY the same, but a tutorial ship level then the ship gets attacked is close enough to the exact same. Then, the way they advertised Halo 2... "The battle has come to Earth", they forgot to add "for 20 minutes". I found the single player pretty repetitive and boring for the most part with zero replay value. Multiplayer was just boring and annoying. Shields completely ruined it.[/quote
I feel the opposite, I feel that shields are what make Halo's multiplayer great. I hate being instantly killed by a shit grenade thrown across the map in CoD4 or Resistance 2 or whatever. That can't happen in Halo, you can't just instantly get a kill by lobbing a grenade or land a single headshot (unless you play without shields), you actually have to WORK for your kill, and if you get killed there is a perfectly explainable reason why since it takes a great deal of firepower to kill you with full shields (i.e rocket, chain of grenades, etc.)
I'm going to be really honest with you, I didn't read all of this. The reason for my laziness is that you started comparing it to COD4 in the first paragraph. I get that you're probably trying to point out that Halo is a unique game among fps' of our time, but comparing COD4 and Halo is an age old scenario. Sorry. I've only actually played combat evolved (which was brilliant) so I guess my view is flawed somewhat anyway.
Oh, and by that system of merit, you could just read the entire wikipedia on everything Half Life related, and not ever play it. There is something to actually playing the game and not reading about it.
. First of all this piece is poorly written, I'm sorry, you obviously have put a lot of effort into it, but the language and the way it's presented often make it difficult to fully extract your points because you constantly backtrack and create whole paragraphs describing something that could have been said in a single line, your argument needn't be half as long as it is because there's no real depth there.
Yea, I see what you mean. This wasn't one of my actual reviews, so it lacks the polish of the ones I post in the User review forum. It was written about the time that ODST came out, but I didn't feel like boring the world with another Halo thread at the time
. First of all your first long section is pretty much bullshit - you assume the player wishes to know exactly where everything is, and how the mechanics work - the fact that in Call of Duty enemies would not spawn in the same place twice, and the fact the mechanics forced the player to push up, lead to a unique and interesting gameplay style
To be fair the piece pretty much points out what I believe makes the Halo Series a good bunch of games.
- there is no "strategy" to the Call of Duty gameplay as your misguided mind often perceives, rather the game is simply an action game - that's what it did well, it forced the player to push up avoiding randomly spawning enemies.
I can't help it! I'm an RTS player!
Your main quarrel with this system seems to be the idea that you are not certain where they will spawn and therefore cannot prepare for it. I'm sorry, but does that seem pretty stupid to you? The game doesn't want you to know where the enemies spawn every time, else there would be no replay value and the player could memorize where each enemy spawned - the system worked to a degree. If anything you should have criticized the numbers that spawned rather than the fact the parameters are not always the same.
Like I said, I can't help but think that. The part of Halo that I enjoyed was creating paths to the objective
Your complaints with the narrative however, are to a degree true, but you forget it's a video game and therefore it does not have to obey the laws of reality, it's an action game that allows the player to fill a persona but at the same time shepherds them through an experience - there's nothing wrong with that system.
True, there is nothing wrong with it. But Halo feels like it accomplishes what it tries to do. Put you in the shoes of Master Chief. But COD (excluding 1 and 2) doesn't feel like it accomplishes what it is set out to do. I'm not saying it should be more realistic, but rather like it was in COD 2, the game actually made me feel like a soldier.
However, it could be argued that Halo's system is flawed because it allows the player to simply sit back and pick enemies off, not the point of an action game. The fact the player knows how many enemies will be around which given corner could lead to boredom on a second or third playthrough - both systems have pros and cons you failed to recognize
I'm going to be really honest with you, I didn't read all of this. The reason for my laziness is that you started comparing it to COD4 in the first paragraph.
I really think that if I had a shitload of aliens running at me brandishing things that will likely kill me in horrible ways, I'd like to be as far away as I could. Preferably in a space ship, bombing the shit out of the planet.
no no no no no. In the halo 3 campain only one eneny carries melee weapons and you can kill him instantly with a hit to the back. meleeing is indeed alot of fun it halo 3
Yea, I see what you mean. This wasn't one of my actual reviews, so it lacks the polish of the ones I post in the User review forum. It was written about the time that ODST came out, but I didn't feel like boring the world with another Halo thread at the time
But in Call of Duty 4 there was no way to create a path to the objective because the game was entirely linear, thus the system worked.
True, there is nothing wrong with it. But Halo feels like it accomplishes what it tries to do. Put you in the shoes of Master Chief. But COD (excluding 1 and 2) doesn't feel like it accomplishes what it is set out to do. I'm not saying it should be more realistic, but rather like it was in COD 2, the game actually made me feel like a soldier.
If I start a campaign level in Call of Duty 4 (This applies to most, but not all of them), I immediately feel annoyed that the game has thrown my into a situation which doesn't seem to make sense to me.
That is where I'm different. When I start a game, like Halo 2, and the first level is the exact same as Halo 1, it pisses me off. Ok, for the fanboys, it isn't EXACTLY the same, but a tutorial ship level then the ship gets attacked is close enough to the exact same. Then, the way they advertised Halo 2... "The battle has come to Earth", they forgot to add "for 20 minutes". I found the single player pretty repetitive and boring for the most part with zero replay value. Multiplayer was just boring and annoying. Shields completely ruined it.[/quote
I feel the opposite, I feel that shields are what make Halo's multiplayer great. I hate being instantly killed by a shit grenade thrown across the map in CoD4 or Resistance 2 or whatever. That can't happen in Halo, you can't just instantly get a kill by lobbing a grenade or land a single headshot (unless you play without shields), you actually have to WORK for your kill, and if you get killed there is a perfectly explainable reason why since it takes a great deal of firepower to kill you with full shields (i.e rocket, chain of grenades, etc.)
Yeah, I hate that. Like when I shoot someone with a rocket, they hide behind a rock and are back to full health, it annoys me. Basically means nothing, and other times you empty the clip, and they just takes their shield down, then you have to reload. Because of that, on Call of Duty, I only play on hardcore. I get sick of emptying a clip in a guy and they run off. Unrealistic, but mostly annoying...
I'm going to be really honest with you, I didn't read all of this. The reason for my laziness is that you started comparing it to COD4 in the first paragraph.
I have to say i agree with the long-ass OP here, its total bull that CoD games have generally garbage friendly AI, expecting me as private smith to do everything, they just take pot-shots and never actually do damage..
at least halo has reasons for its game mechanics, such as yeah, your allies suck, that's why humanity is losing, now go do some bad ass shit, and then CoD puts you as 'just a soldier' and in its more recent instalments, I feel I'm needed even more, and that's just stupid, especially if i'm part of the SAS, and new guy at that.
though they did get the SAS AI right for some parts of some missions, but those bits are quite scripted, which sucks.
So, wait, if in COD4, you were say....a lower ranking official, say a squad leader, suddenly everything would be fine, because your allies are SUPPOSED to suck?
That is a horrid reasoning process I might add.
Marines and such are trained for a long time to do their job, and yet the ones we get can't drive vehicles worth a damn. How is that any better than the micromanaging that COD4 implies?
It isn't. The AI issues in both are unacceptable, and that rationalization is simply silly.
no, because we know humans are roughly equal, therefore there shouldn't be an imbalance in AI from friend to foe. if i were some sort of advisor for a hasty-trained force, then there's something to excuse friendly AI being worse than the hostile.
yeah, halo's AI suck at driving, but whatever, i like to drive anyway. and i'd rather there be a rationalization, albeit silly, over a wall-banger.
That is a pretty bad rationalization. Halo AI's also love to throw themselves at enemies, shoot in ways that can't possibly hit, etc etc. They are basically all retarded to a degree that no human being with a gun should be.
Here we go... Time to pick apart an entire argument, again.
D_987 said:
. First of all this piece is poorly written, I'm sorry, you obviously have put a lot of effort into it, but the language and the way it's presented often make it difficult to fully extract your points because you constantly backtrack and create whole paragraphs describing something that could have been said in a single line, your argument needn't be half as long as it is because there's no real depth there.
Poorly written, says the guy who started two paragraphs with "First of all," and failing to put a comma afterward, both times. Also, saying that something could have been said in a single line, followed up by stating that the argument could be half the length, is redundant, no?
D_987 said:
. First of all your first long section is pretty much bullshit - you assume the player wishes to know exactly where everything is, and how the mechanics work - the fact that in Call of Duty enemies would not spawn in the same place twice, and the fact the mechanics forced the player to push up, lead to a unique and interesting gameplay style - there is no "strategy" to the Call of Duty gameplay as your misguided mind often perceives, rather the game is simply an action game - that's what it did well, it forced the player to push up avoiding randomly spawning enemies.
Neglecting the second use of "first of all," thus making it incorrect, I think it would be fair to want to know how the mechanics of my gun work in any given situation. For example, why the enemies' AK-47s are for some reason more accurate than my M16. This is the problem with unknown mechanics in a "realistic" setting: anyone who knows how real guns work, will want guns modeled based on real guns in a video game to function like the real thing.
Oh, yeah, and yes, the enemies do respawn in the same places, many times. I remember the level where you escort War Pig in particular. There's that bus sitting there, with about three enemies inside it. Pop them all, and three more will immediately respawn by moving into the bus and taking the exact same positions. This can go on for as long as you have bullets. The only way past this is to go where the developers wanted you to go, that is, the buildings on the right side. At least in Halo, I can approach it my own way.
(In this case, it'd be throwing a grenade inside the bus, then hijacking War Pig and driving through the terrain like an asshole. )
Speaking of mechanics, yet going on another line of thought, I'd like to point something else out. In Halo, all the guns in Halo retain their functions between the campaign and matchmaking. (e.g. The Battle Rifle's 3-round burst, 36 bullet clip and decent stopping power works the same way on both Covenant Brutes and other players.) In Call of Duty 4, they don't. (Who the hell changed my G3 from full-auto to semi-auto?)
D_987 said:
Your main quarrel with this system seems to be the idea that you are not certain where they will spawn and therefore cannot prepare for it. I'm sorry, but does that seem pretty stupid to you? The game doesn't want you to know where the enemies spawn every time, else there would be no replay value and the player could memorize where each enemy spawned - the system worked to a degree. If anything you should have criticized the numbers that spawned rather than the fact the parameters are not always the same.
The rules change in each area, but in that particular area, the enemies spawn in the same places every time. So, yes, you can memorize where everything will happen and adjust accordingly. May not have been Pimppeter's argument, but I still find something clearly wrong with how each set piece works in CoD4.
D_987 said:
Your complaints with the narrative however, are to a degree true, but you forget it's a video game and therefore it does not have to obey the laws of reality, it's an action game that allows the player to fill a persona but at the same time shepherds them through an experience - there's nothing wrong with that system.
I think there's something wrong if I have to restart a sequence because I died right before getting on a helicopter out of a city, and then, after doing it successfully, die anyway as part of the fucking cutscene.
It's not like getting the wounded pilot onto that chopper saved her from the inevitable nuke, anyway. In fact, the entire mission amounts to nothing. Anyone you saved, any enemies you spared, and any information you gathered is all lost anyway in the explosion. Yet I have to make it to the specific point to see the nuclear blast from a specific angle to progress the game.
D_987 said:
However, it could be argued that Halo's system is flawed because it allows the player to simply sit back and pick enemies off, not the point of an action game. The fact the player knows how many enemies will be around which given corner could lead to boredom on a second or third playthrough - both systems have pros and cons you failed to recognize.
There are sniper rifles in the game. Given this, if I want to hang back and use a sniper rifle the way it's supposed to be used, I should be allowed the option, damn it.
I still like the Call of Duty games that I've played, but the campaign, particularly in Call of Duty 4, is soured for me on account of being so heavily railroaded that I feel like there's crack shot snipers waiting for the exact moment I step off the tracks.
Take all that as you will, but this is my opinion and I'm not changing it. Quote if you wish, but any attempt to drag me back into this will be done with a Needler pointed at your skull. You have been warned.
Halo is horrid for the exact reasons that you specify.
By having stock pieces spawn in the same place at the same time and act the same way, you remove any real skill, and remand the game to a glorified trial and error mess.
I beat legendary simply by running through, memorizing positions, and then crafting a path of least resistance. The AI is so thick and predictable that in all three of the main games, I was never surprised even once. It is like playing Solitaire but knowing where all the cards are. Sure, I can't get to them now, but if I try enough times, I'll find it out with minimal effort.
The parts of Halo that make it so easy to pick up also dull the experience by removing any element of challenge. All of the unknowns and various intricacies that other games have, such as Half Life and System Shock, make it impossible to simply brute force it, even given the mystical quick save key.
tl;dr: Halo is dumbed down to the point that I feel like we're taking a stroll with mommy holding our hands, rather than being let alone into the world. And that just breaks the immersion.
I think you're being a bit harsh. Personally, Halo's not in my top 10 list whatsoever (probs not top 20 either) but I always felt that it was worthy of a few campaign replays, as well as some great system-link multiplayer.
I've been playing FPS' for around 15 years now, I think I'm qualified and seasoned enough to have an objective and honest opinion. Halo has interesting and intelligent level design, great vehicle sections (as long as the AI isn't driving) and challenging open-range battle sequences. Though the graphics are a bit overbearingly-purply-shiney-laser-beams-esque, it all serves a purpose and compliments the Halo style.
The story is run-of-the-mill Sci-Fi but it doesn't strive to be anything more, despite the grandeur involved with its marketing strategy and composure (That's MS dollars at work).
Honestly, if you truly believe that because you can run through a game by memorising the easy routes and shortcuts etc. it makes it horrible and badly executed then you shouldn't even be playing the game in the first place, get out and do something productive rather than trying to run a game in to the ground because it doesn't 100% meet your stringent criteria.
p.s I don't mean to pick on you, I'm just tired of all bias game-bashing that goes on in this site.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
