agreed, some of the best level design can be found in some of those maps. they are awe inspiring and honestly what really made me love halo multiplayer the mostQuote:
Originally Posted by Ki11a_FTW
Printable View
agreed, some of the best level design can be found in some of those maps. they are awe inspiring and honestly what really made me love halo multiplayer the mostQuote:
Originally Posted by Ki11a_FTW
Halo 2 BTB Supremacy. Halo 3 had the best custom games IMO. Halo 3 ODST had the best SP IMO.
Halo 3 was simply anticlimactic though. All that buildup and then it ends as it begins. Hardly enough time spent on Earth and barely any time spent on the Ark. it simply needed to be doubled in length.
Halo 2 had the best Flood IMO. They scared the hell out of me and embodied what I thought the Flood was. They were Halo 1's Flood and more. Halo 3's Flood were rushed like the game itself and in a lot of ways represent Halo 3's rushedness. They were visually appealing, audio effects were nice, they were dynamic, fair enemies, but they lacked a part of the Flood that is simply a staple: unrelenting infestation. They were too careful half of the time, Brutes Flood were just damage sponges that didn't even absorb damage, and flood infection hardly made much of an impact gameplay-wise. Elite Combat Forms were probably the most formidable and terrifying, but that was probably it. The environments were fantastic. However, Pure Forms were rushed even if they were intriguing. They were also obnoxious and lacked dynamic ways to attack them. Either poke at them, use the Brute Shot, go close quarters and blast them, or cat-and-mouse. That was really it. The Flood simply lacked expansive devastation like we say in past games and that's not a good way to wrap up their role in the trilogy.
Damn. You're like some kind of diva.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
Moving on.
I think it's fairly safe to say that we all had different opinions on the Halo series. Most of us agree that Halo was pretty great when it came out. But I also think it's fairly safe to say that it's pretty difficult to create a sequel to something that is so successful. Some games that come to mind would be Portal vs Portal 2. Or Bioshock vs Bioshock 2. Batman Arkham Asylum vs Arkham City. These games, although great, suffered when compared to what came before them. There are very few games out there that continue to be such a massive hit once they have a sequel, unless of course they reboot the series in some way. Usually too much story gets in the way, or gameplay suffers due to an added element. In my opinion, Bungie managed to keep the series going very well. And no matter what you say about the games, from a business standpoint, they were very successful all across the board (except maybe ODST, I'm not sure if the sales for that were close to those of the rest of the series).
The biggest problem with Halo 2 was that it was rushed. I'm sure if they had been able to do all the things they wanted to do, it would have been just as good as the rest. I personally enjoyed Halo 2... but I'm constantly arguing with someone like Masterz about it because we all experienced it in different ways. Halo 3 was good, but I can agree when people say there were some unnecessary levels, and it was a bit rushed. And yes, it was constantly said that Halo 3 was making up for what Halo 2 didn't have, but when you talk about rushing something, Halo CE was the definition of a rushed game. Just look at all the levels that were cut from the final game. Even when you listen to them talk about it on the Halo 3 bonus disc, they constantly talk about how there are just gaps in the story because of how much isn't there.
I think it's safe to say that all the games are flawed in some way, but it doesn't stop them from being fun to play in my opinion, and I think that's what makes Bungie just as successful as any other developer out there.
On the subject of sequels, I found Mass Effect 2 to be an amazing sequal to an already great game, Mass Effect. Even Mass Effect 3 was pretty consistent with the rest of the games.
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6096/22250399.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by BobtheGreatII
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobtheGreatII
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobtheGreatII
Ladies and Gentlemen, BobtheGreatII.
The point I was civilly making is that thus far Bungie has been a one-trick pony. They've made Halo games exclusively for the better part of a decade, and all of them have been tapping into the same set of fans; I don't think it's a stretch to say that most of the people who have enjoyed Halo have not played ONI and Marathon, regardless of how good they were or weren't. A great studio is going to be able to retain its popularity and critical acclaim through several franchises. It remains to be seen whether or not Bungie can make another one. Perhaps it's a bit premature to say they are not great, but at the same time it's also premature say that they are great.
And like I said, I think Bungie games are above average, that's still praise. I never once said they were awful, mediocre, etc. I only said that they aren't perfect and that most of their games have not met my criteria for a "great game," which I outlined in the previous post.
*cough*
thanks insanedrive
Gotta be honest, I didn't make this comparison either:
I love Bungie.
itt making points on the internet
Whats with all the banned people in this thread....
