Jump to content

Ghostie

Member
  • Content Count

    329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ghostie

  1. It's the most prominent and universally agreed upon example I could think of.
  2. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Case in point; TheIcePrincess endlessly posting quasi-Halo related spam. Firstly, it matters because doing it 'to disagree' is a dismissive and passive aggressive action. It creates animosity and fosters an unwelcoming atmosphere to posters. If you disagree, tell them with words and explain to them why. Don't hide behind a button. Secondly, seems like you must care a lot about rep to actually bother downvoting on something as inoffensive as a preference for a gameplay mechanic.
  3. http://teambeyond.net/forum/topic/8296-was-sprint-the-real-issue-in-hr-and-h4/page-6?do=findComment&comment=362267
  4. Random question: how well do you think Sprint would work in a CE-style game?
  5. Ok fair enough. Their storylines aren't deep. However, they are tightly-paced, tonally consistent, well arced, and contain likeable and relatable characters. Those are all characteristics of a story that is 'good'. In the end though, each individual judges for themselves whether such qualities amount to a piece of media that's good. IMO the OG trilogy's story was good, even though it's not very intelligent or layered. I agree that CE's plot is more commendable than 2 or 3's, though, but not because the latter two tried and failed to be something greater, but because they didn't really try at all. That, and they also had more plotholes and unnecessary complexity in their narratives.
  6. Halo 4's story was mediocre. Only thing saving it is the Cortana-Chief relationship, and even that has a lot of missing thematic potential. I really don't understand how you like 343's work so much. This will sound completely rude and judgmental, but I honestly would like to ask if H4 was your first Halo? If it is, then I'd understand, because Reach was my first MP Halo, and even though I'm aware of its objective flaws, my love for it often means I overlook or trivialise said flaws.
  7. I didn't neg you, but my take on your stance is that it's not the players, but the developers that have shifted focus onto military shooters. They've made this asinine self-fulfilling prophecy that copying CoD is the only way to go. It's not. If something is good, people will consume it, be it games, movies, food etc. If it was true that the dominant item in the market always equates to non-similar rivals failing, then there'd not be any of the gameplay/trend evolution we've seen throughout the entirety of gaming. Like imagine prior to CoD 4's release when Halo was dominant (2006-7, H2 top of Xbl, H3 hype insurmountable), the dev's were like 'nah hold up,the scene has shifted toward sci-fi shooters with long kill times and this stupid "map control" shit. A CoD with loadouts and ~1 sec kill times probably comes off as weird to any player. Let's just make a H2 clone.' If the game has good marketing, people will buy it. If the game is fun, people will play it. If the game has features that support replayability, people will keep playing it. There will always be a place for games that aren't the dominant item in the market.
  8. It's sad to see how such a negative, cynical predicton overestimated H5's actual success.
  9. Wc3's my favourite game too, shame it got knocked out by a game I've never heard of :/ Do you still play ladder?
  10. Firstly, I hope you're not talking about initial sales when referring to 'glory times' because that's determined 75% by advertising (mostly campaign-focused) and 25% by new content (which is basically another form of advertising a la Warzone). If 343 market the game to casuals while making CE 2.0, there's no reason for a sales dropoff. Secondly, assuming you're probably talking popularity & game longevity, while a fun base game is important, extra content is as significant a determinant of popularity. I'm talking Forge, Theater, Firefight etc. As for it being 'fun' in the players' eyes, as long as it is balanced, offers variety, fosters a social environment & doesn't frustrate the player, it's all the game needs. And again; the CoD market though overlapping isn't the Halo market, let alone the FPS market. If the game is good, it'll find its own audience.
  11. Enjoyment of competitive MP: H1 - 8 H2 - 7 H3 - 6.5 Reach - 9 H4 - 3 H5 - lol didn't buy it Enjoyment of overall game: CE - 9.5 H2 - 7 H3 - 8 Reach - 9 H4 - 1 H5 - lol
  12. My 0.02 on getting Halo out of its ditch and back on the rise. Honestly, the core gameplay just needs to be fun again. That could mean going back to H2-3 style gameplay, it could mean adopting CE-style mechanics, it could even mean becoming a class-based shooter. Simply put, I disagree with this forum's consensus that 'different = inherently bad'. The changes Reach, 4 and 5 brought aren't bad because they're outside of Halo's core (which itself is a stupid, completely subjective buzzword), they're bad because they're not fun. They're fucking frustrating. From just a common sense perspective, I can't see anyone - casual or competitive - enjoying losing gun battles from Bloom, dying to an Incineration Cannon from RNG ordnance, or trying to track the movement of Spartans that can boost, glide and slide fucking everywhere. Of course it's true that player expectations dictate that there should be some continuity between titles, but I'm not saying turn Halo into a turn-based game. I just think Halo can still thrive if it had changes that make sense with the sandbox, add depth and don't frustrate the player. H1 or H2/3 clone or something completely new, I think the most important aspect is that the game needs to be fun in order to get Halo out of its ditch. And to everyone saying 'H1/2/3-style games don't appeal to kids in the CoD market anymore'. Well no shit, that's the CoD market. Make a fun enough game that aims for its own niche (i.e. not H4 or H5, which I think many would agree pander to CoD kids to varying extents), and it'll inevitably have its own fanbase. The complementary features on the other hand, don't just need to be exceptional (and functional *cough* 343 *cough*), but they need to be innovative. This stuff is key to longevity, but furthermore it facilitates sub-communities and is a great selling point in reviews. Halo 5 should've not only had a working Forge, Fileshare, Theater & Spectator mode at launch, it should have a custom mission editor (make your own missions/firefight scenarios), custom games server browser, and heck, why not throw in a fucking sound editor where you can record sounds from Theater and mix them up to make dubstep-like jams? What about in-built montaging tools, where you can apply filters, special camera movements, captions & title graphics etc.? In-depth stats not only on a website, but in-game? I could go on for days. Innovation in game features is needed to make Halo rise to the top again.
  13. Hello good sir :3 How are you finding the game so far? Many Aussies playing?
  14. H5's textures (in general, not just iudging by those Forge pics - thouhh they certainly demonstrate my point prominently) look like dogshit. I honestly think CE had better detailed and better drawn textures. Forge could definitely come close to dev maps, especially considering what all the H5 UNSC maps look like. More detailed textures that actually look like a material other than plastic and ability to shape terrain (not plop down premade rock/ground assets, but shape the actual mesh of the map's floor) is all that's needed.
  15. Gdi the 3 games I'm rooting for (H3, H1, Warcraft 3) have tough initial brackets :/
  16. Good try but your math is off by an order of magnitude.
  17. Bungie creates HaloBungie kills Halo Bungie creates 343 343 kills Halo (4) 343 kills Halo again (MCC) 343 creates Halo fanfiction (H5 campaign)
  18. Slightly offtopic, it's disgusting how little reviewers care about Halo's multiplayer. Since H2, MP has been as significant, if not more, than SP. Yet the multiplayer is nothing but a fucking afterthought in these reviews. Seriously, every review I've read so far has been 10 paragraphs on H5's mediocre storyline, 1 paragraph on the new super amazing 12v12 Warzone, and 1 paragrpah mentioning 'oh Arena's okay' in passing. I'm not expecting a fucking essay on the metagame of H5, but the reviews give zero shits about spectator mode, the new ranks, the lack of forge and gametypes, or even whether they liked the maps and new sandbox. Imagine a reviewer treating Sc2's multiplayer, or Spec Ops The Line's singleplayer, the same way they treat Halo's multiplayer. Ugh /endrant.
  19. Hey man, re-added you a while back but still haven't had a chance to play with you! Glad to know we're in the same boat in regards to H5. I'll still be playing MCC sparingly so if you ever wanna party up, send an invite. Any Aussies here still plan on playing?
  20. I'll probably keep playing if only for the timeless campaigns (excluding H4). Rip multiplayer though, especially in Aus. Thank you 343i. Thank you for releasing this game, and saving me hundreds of dollars that I would've spent on future Halo products. Thank you for being so inconcievably incompetent, so greedy, that you've eviscerated my loyalty to what was once my favourite game franchise.
  21. PM me as much as you can and/or are willing to. :3
  22. Could you Pm me, like, everything in the story? :3
×

Important Information

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