Jump to content

Captainjazz dk

Member
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Honestly, I don't even know how it works. Could you elaborate a bit, please?
  2. It is called planned obsolescence. When a new Halo game is released they don't pay older games any attention anymore.
  3. It might. But as the mechanics, flow, gameplay etc. has changed so much from the first games; I don’t really find it interesting anymore. Even if it was a well-balanced, competitive game, I would not enjoy it as I don’t enjoy a lot of other games. The difference between the experience that was CE and H5 is too far, so if it is going to excel it is because it works as a modern generic shooter. However, there are a lot of them on the market and I can’t really see why people would play H5, when other games do the same better. So I am skeptical too.
  4. I am not even sure the standard game is worth buying.
  5. No. CE was not built around multiplayer; it was a rather late addition to the game. And the later games featured both campaign and multiplayer.
  6. Some of the "dump ones" was introduced in ODST, I think. E.g. EMP and needle kill. I wish they could be turned off in the main games.
  7. What is this supposed to be? Is it a marine?
  8. I would like a system which took the players preferences into consideration. I don’t know how it could be made, but I am tired of always playing terrible maps without a working starting weapon. If I never wants to play AR on Last resort it would be nice to have an option to avoid that map and gametype, or at least that each player’s preferences would be taken into account. People could rate the maps and then what they the preferred would have a higher change of getting selected.
  9. It’s a shame that the community opinion has shifted towards an acceptance of sprint. But it doesn’t really matter. Any argument either in favour or against sprint that relies on opinion is always going to be an argumentum ad populum. I strongly believe that decisions with regard to gameplay should rely on an examination of what gameplay certain mechanics entail. Sprint is not a problem because many, most or none believe it, but because the relationship with the shield mechanic is antagonistic. If you want strafing, shield etc. to be core mechanics sprint will always be a problem, as long as you can’t move and always shoot at the same time. This is not to say that in the ‘actual gameplay’ it is always the case, but an analysis has to be based on ideal or ‘implied gameplay’.
  10. I don't think the problem is that the mechanics change, the problem is that the games keep getting worse. From CE to H2 to H3 to Reach to H4, If the games were released in the opposite order, they could get better and better. And I wouldn't mind change. (Of course they would never get to make a next game if H4 was the first).
  11. Yes. It is a stupid argument and a fallacy too. It dosen't matter if you have played the game for ten minutes or your entire life. Your understanding of mechanics, map design, flow et cetera is the important thing.
  12. Putting aside the Honey Moon... Just because you are good at a game doesn’t mean you necessarily can make a comprehensive or qualified analysis of it. But I am surprised they were that optimistic. I have only played a tiny amount of H4 games, and not even the first one did I enjoy.
  13. While I don't think it is enough to buff sprint (it needs to be removed as it is incompatible with the shield mechanic) your feedback to the games aesthetic is right. I actually think H3 looks better, mostly because it doesn’t look like a cheap generic shooter. I am stunned that 343 managed to make a game that look so last gen and plays like a low cost, copy-paste, generic shooter. How did they even succeed in removing every kind of halo-identity from the game?!
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.