You mean like Masterz with his fetish for demented chrome everything?Originally Posted by Limited
You mean like Masterz with his fetish for demented chrome everything?
I'm sure this has already been said but I don't have time to go through 74 pages. I think that the title of this topic should read Halo 3, still isn't on PC. As for my opinion for this game the animation is crap and will likely disappoint. Sad most of all the good devs are gone.
Nothing before Halo4, that hasn't already, is ever going to get ported to the PC. Deal with it.
.
You have to realize that video games are being marketed to a much wider audience than they were when we were kids. Such a diverse range of customers means it's impossible to please everyone. I'd rather see a game go all in and stick to its own principles than try to please everyone and fail on all counts (Reach).
COD and Halo are totally different. Halo as a unique style that people identify things and that look pretty damn good. I wouldn't be that bitchy about it if they actually somewhat resembled traditional Halo then GoW or Resistance. They look nothing like covenant without sleek, high-tech armor.
And no its not dumb people, its their opinions and your ignorance.
Personally Id rather see new and creative games that are unique compared to remakes and continuing of series that have already had a history of ten years. You do what you do tell the story you set out to tell. Anything after that is milking a good product (if it is good), no matter how good or bad it is.
Last edited by Higuy; April 23rd, 2012 at 06:27 PM.
Stop right there. What I mean is that a mass of gamers are saying they want change in a video game (like Halo, ala the same old thing), but those same gamers are playing a game like CoD that doesn't change at all. I'm thinking gamers today lack the concept of being rewarded for their kills or completing objectives. Everything is demanded to be so fast now. Whatever happened to checkmates when playing? Sure, the games may take skill, but it's rather skill in button mashing and hand-eye-coordination than strategic thinking. You know how I know Halo Reach isn't broken/stupid like CoD? I can still use strategy and tactics interchangeably to win. CoD misses the need for strategy, which makes it a dull-ass game with no gameplay quality in the end. I'm only using CoD as an example because it's the latest trend in what most consumers want, hence why Halo 4 has to resort to the faster gameplay style.
Reach wasn't a failure because it lacked quality. It failed because the market is filled with the desire for games like CoD and BF3. Quantity over Quality in terms of points. A shallow reward from gameplay isn't a reward at all in my book. Reach at least offered the quality pointmaking we saw in previous Halo games: it just suffered from a lack of external support (the gamers who spoke up and wanted change wanted arena-style maps or hashes of old maps that wouldn't work with the game's design) and a devolving sense of balance because of the opinions brought forth by a increasing wayward playerbase.
Last edited by DarkHalo003; April 23rd, 2012 at 06:34 PM.
How do you know it's the same gamers saying all these different things?
Stop right there.
Yes it was. What it didn't lack was production value. And how did you get into some Halo vs. CoD rant that has nothing to do with what I said, anyway?
Last edited by Pooky; April 23rd, 2012 at 07:10 PM.
Oh you silly Reach haters you ;3
It was the most notorious example I could think of and I know because I spent 3 years on Bungie forums listening to the same complaints relative to this subject. It has a lot to do with what you said because franchises like CoD are what the majority of FPS gamers are playing. All I see is contradiction with these gamers: "We want changes to Halo's traditional gameplay because we're tired of the same thing! We also want more Call of Duty!"
It's these kinds of players that I see on forums who ruin nice design concepts. These players go under the guise of being "Competitive" and "Pro," both of which consist of two major groups that consist of the Halo player base. When the kinds of players that correspond to the quotation aforementioned make mass complaints to the caring developers on the developers' forums, it makes a statement for two large groups, which is a complete logical fallacy considering that these participants hardly count as a fraction of the actual player base. I hate referring to the Reach Beta, but Bungie had the design for most of their shit done right the first time. The DMR was balanced, the Pistol was balanced, and they understood the problem with the grenades and slight weakness of the AR, both of which were relatively fixed afterwards.
Then the players I keep mentioning show up and complain because Halo isn't CoD, thus we have the issues with Reach we have now.
tl;dr
The contradictory players call for gameplay-ruining design elements because the games they play (like CoD) have no sense of quality. Reach had quality, just no the kind for these players. I blame them. Get it now?
And the quotation goes:
Don't take my words out of context, especially when there is more meaning to them just two words more.Reach isn't broken/stupid like CoD.
Last edited by DarkHalo003; April 23rd, 2012 at 07:56 PM.
How does adding "like CoD" to the end of it make a big difference? It's broken and stupid. Whether other games are also broken and stupid is irrelevant.
As for CoD, I've seen just as many people if not more complaining about it so I really don't see what your point is. Different kinds of people want different things.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks