Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

I think eventually we will have a classic playlist. Unfortunately, like everything 343 does, it will just take absolutely forever.

 

No, Bungie didn't make sprint a permanent ability. They just put Bubbleshields and Dropshields in Oddball and King of the Hill. They just let you disarm the bomb while in Armor Lock. They just let you sprint up and melee twice because melees didn't do bleed through damage and there was no stopping power against sprint. They just let you get one kill and camp space on Zealot. They just put a banshee on Team Rifles on Ascension. They just put plasma pistols everywhere in H2. They just put a HORRIBLE weapon respawn system in H2 and H3. They just let you spawn with a shotgun or a grenade launcher in Invasion. I could go on and on about how they didn't know what was good for the game.

All valid points.

Share this post


Link to post

I will admit 343s default settings are better than bungie's. But I think 343 is trying too hard to bridge the gap between casual and competitive when they should just let them exist independently like Bungie did. The community is so toxic now thanks to this awful compromise that pleases no one except the 30-50k people left playing (a fraction of the millions daily that used to play).

  • Upvote (+1) 9

Share this post


Link to post

I will admit 343s default settings are better than bungie's. But I think 343 is trying too hard to bridge the gap between casual and competitive when they should just let them exist independently like Bungie did. The community is so toxic now thanks to this awful compromise that pleases no one except the 30-50k people left playing (a fraction of the millions daily that used to play).

Same thing is going on with Destiny. They are trying to balance PvP and PvE and it's just not working out and a lot of PvE players are pissed.
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

ET was not built with 100s of millions of dollars and modern AAA developer tools and talent. H4 is literally as bad a game that could possibly be made with the assets 343 has at their disposal.

 

And no, it is a bad game. It's a soulless husk devoid of creativity or original thought. This is true whether you look at it in the context of a Halo game or not.

H4 was a solid game. It was very polished, graphically amazing (for a 360 game), gameplay felt solid, decent amount of content, good story etc. 

 

The only reason you're calling it a bad game is because it strayed (pretty damn far to be fair) away from classic Halo's mechanics and was aimed more at the casual audience than the competitive. Had it not had sprint and loadouts we'd probably be saying H4 was a pretty decent game.

 

Queue the downvotes for praising H4

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

H4 is a very solid game. It was highly polished, graphically amazing (for a 360 game), gameplay felt solid, decent amount of content, good story etc.

 

The only reason you're calling it a bad game is because it strayed (pretty damn far to be fair) away from classic Halo's mechanics. Had it not had sprint and loadouts we'd probably be saying H4 was a pretty decent game.

 

Queue the downvotes for praising H4

It had random ordnance and no descope. NO DESCOPE!!! And FLINCH and 1 decent map (Haven).
  • Upvote (+1) 6
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

It had random ordnance and no descope. NO DESCOPE!!! And FLINCH and 1 decent map (Haven).

All of which are only problems for a Halo game. We are talking about it as if it wasn't a Halo game.
  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

It had random ordnance and no descope. NO DESCOPE!!! And FLINCH and 1 decent map (Haven).

Tons of games have very random elements, the vast majority of shooters don't have descope. These games are still highly praised.

 

The only reason we consider these bad things is because it has Halo in the title. Remove that and they're not problems.

Share this post


Link to post

Tons of games have very random elements, the vast majority of shooters don't have descope. These games are still highly praised.

 

The only reason we consider these bad things is because it has Halo in the title. Remove that and they're not problems.

Remove the Halo of the title and, what you have is a scifi game that is an irrelevant game that goes into obscurity after release week, because scifi shooters (arena shooters) are in a dying genre.
  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Like I'm saying to Moa. Its a mix of blame. Xbox made a underpowered console and 343 bit off more than they could chew.

How is it the console's fault if other games on the console have splitscreen?

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Remove the Halo of the title and, what you have is a scifi game that is an irrelevant game that goes into obscurity after release week, because scifi shooters (arena shooters) are in a dying genre.

That doesn't make it a bad game.

Share this post


Link to post

Tons of games have very random elements, the vast majority of shooters don't have descope. These games are still highly praised.

 

The only reason we consider these bad things is because it has Halo in the title. Remove that and they're not problems.

In other games those mechanics work though. Maonly due to very fast killtimes.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

In other games those mechanics work though. Maonly due to very fast killtimes.

They worked fine in H4.

 

They just created a style of gameplay which was different to classic Halo, hence why a number of people weren't happy.

Ok, you wouldn't have played that game, you wouldn't have payed full price for it.

This is completely irrelevant to the argument.

  • Downvote (-1) 7

Share this post


Link to post

H4 was a solid game. It was very polished, graphically amazing (for a 360 game), gameplay felt solid, decent amount of content, good story etc.

 

The only reason you're calling it a bad game is because it strayed (pretty damn far to be fair) away from classic Halo's mechanics and was aimed more at the casual audience than the competitive. Had it not had sprint and loadouts we'd probably be saying H4 was a pretty decent game.

 

Queue the downvotes for praising H4

Even if it had no connection to Halo it would be a boring, generic game that played like shit with a campaign centred on fighting uninteresting anime robots.

 

Aka, bad.

  • Upvote (+1) 5
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

They worked fine in H4.

 

They just created a style of gameplay which was different to classic Halo, hence why a number of people weren't happy.

This is completely irrelevant to the argument.

Your definition of a good game is very loose, the fact that 1 month after release h4 had lost 90% of its day 1 population is very telling, no one liked the game.
  • Upvote (+1) 9
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

They worked fine in H4.

 

 

Lol

 

No.

 

The MCC was my wife's first Halo experience. She only plays COD. H4 was the first Halo game she ever played. She refused to play it after about 5 games. She was meh towards h2 h3 and loved HCE.

 

H4 just did not play well. It's Mish mashed mechanics didn't fit together.

Share this post


Link to post

Even if it had no connection to Halo it would be a boring, generic game that played like shit with a campaign centred on fighting uninteresting anime robots.

 

Aka, bad.

Opinions.

 

I really enjoyed H4. Then again I tend to judge games based off of their own merit rather than that of other games. It played fairly differently to the rest of the series but I still thought it was a great game.

 

I think of H5 in a similar way, it doesn't play all that similarly to old Halos but that doesn't bother me because I actually prefer how it plays to the old Halos.

 

 

Your definition of a good game is very loose, the fact that 1 month after release h4 had lost 90% of its day 1 population is very telling, no one liked the game.

 
I don't think there is a definition for a good game, it's a completely subjective metric.
 
Regarding population, the same thing could be said for a the vast majority of games out there.
  • Downvote (-1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

No... Those mechanics did not work fine. They made the game frustrating. The game is bad. We need to raise our standards in gaming. We keep accepting less and less.

 

Just because something has a lot of technical aspects that are good doesn't mean it is a good game. Something like Thor 2 is a competently made movie with insanely good production value that is soulless and thus not good. It doesn't matter if a lot of effort and money was put into something if it felt like it was made by robots trying to copy what it thinks humans will like. It's not as bad as a low budget lazy piece of crap obviously but that doesn't mean it's good. Going back to the movie example, I would argue something like The Room, as bad as a movie as it is technically, is actually better than Thor 2 because it actually speaks to someone's incredibly messed up soul. You get an idea of how uniquely weird Tommy Wiseau is just from watching his 90 minute movie.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Opinions.

 

I really enjoyed H4. Then again I tend to judge games based off of their own merit rather than that of other games. It played fairly differently to the rest of the series but I still thought it was a great game.

 

I think of H5 in a similar way, it doesn't play all that similarly to old Halos but that doesn't bother me because I actually prefer how it plays to the old Halos.

Ya. Opinions. Too bad for you 90% of the people who played h4 also thought it played like shit.

 

What are you not understanding about its departure from traditional Halo only being part of the issue? H5 is also a huge departure and yet it's reception is much better than h4's? Why? Because h5 plays waaaaay better than h4.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Ya. Opinions. Too bad for you 90% of the people who played h4 also thought it played like shit.

 

What are you not understanding about its departure from traditional Halo only being part of the issue? H5 is also a huge departure and yet it's reception is much better than h4's? Why? Because h5 plays waaaaay better than h4.

Did they now? You've confirmed this with every single one of them I presume?

 

Someone preferring game A to game B does not mean they dislike game B. Yes the population dropped fairly quickly, faster than for old Halos, as is normal for the majority of games released now. That indicates that it wasn't as well received as previous Halos which no one is disputing, it's no indication that the game is bad.

 

I'd also argue that a large factor in the population drop was, as we've been discussing,  the disappointment due to differences with classic Halo.  

 

 

I do agree H5 plays far better though.

  • Downvote (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Ugh.

 

At some point, there is a line to draw between "good on its own" and "good as Halo".

 

Halo 4 is neither. As a Halo game it was a slap in the fucking face, and as generic space military shooter it failed with a ridiculously OP secondary in the bolt shot and a time to kill so long I could get a PHD before I broke someone's shields along with them trying to make a utility weapon in the BR in a class based game.

 

Halo 5 is a BABY step in the right direction. Radar? Come on, we're better than that. Autos with zero purpose other than to spray in competitivr? GROSS.

 

I appreciate them attempting to make a big sandbox with useful weapons, unfortunately they went with a fundamentally wrong idea in that every weapon should just a be a weaker or stronger version of another.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Ugh.

 

At some point, there is a line to draw between "good on its own" and "good as Halo".

 

Halo 4 is neither. As a Halo game it was a slap in the fucking face, and as generic space military shooter it failed with a ridiculously OP secondary in the bolt shot and a time to kill so long I could get a PHD before I broke someone's shields along with them trying to make a utility weapon in the BR in a class based game.

 

 

There are also about a hundred other ways in which we can judge whether a game is good than just if the multiplayer was good and similar to older Halo's. For starters from a campaign point of view, there are mixed opinions. 

 

For starters the story, graphics, production values, art style and design, and music were truly top notch. I felt a real connection to Chief and Cortana that I didn't feel in any other Halo game, there were small details and nuances the writers set up which really helped flesh out the main duo, things like Chief fidgeting with his weapon whenever he's forced to hear about more emotional, human topics etc... The music in my opinion was amazing, Arrival (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5A15Dy3D-I ) is one of my favourite video game OST's of all time (sad to not see it re-appear in Halo 5). There was a real sense of urgency and emotion I felt in the last level of Halo 4 that I haven't felt in a Halo game since maybe the last mission of Halo 3, the art design in Midnight was really out of the world, and it has become one of my favourite halo missions to replay of all time. 

 

JxjVb9v.png

 

 

In combination with it being one of the best looking last gen games of all time, really helped make it at the very least "not a shit game".

 

On the other hand the mission design, promethean enemies, deviation from original halo score, sound design (weapons, actions etc...) really sucked. So it's important to look at all this from an objective point of view.

 

From a multiplayer stand point, I can understand all the critiques, I dropped it after two weeks from release, and came back to it maybe once a week every 1-2 months. My friend told me about turbo update months later but I never really gave it a shot. It wasn't until I started making friends with people online on the MCC that I was shocked to find that a lot of these people I met and partied up with would ask me to play Halo 4 play lists. The turbo update is pretty fun and plays very different to Halo 4 release.

 

I feel people are too overly-critical, (rightfully so though). It was in many ways a betrayal to the original unique vision of the OG Halo trilogy. But from what I've seen, a lot of the fans, by choice or otherwise, are totally incapable of giving Halo 4 thumbs up where it deserves. Halo 4 a "shit" game, ridiculous.

 

Also for anyone really interested in an analysis of the Halo 4 and 5 campaign mission by mission should really read this guys blog (https://haruspis.wordpress.com ), he really delves into all the details and gives a fair and objective view on the campaign. 

  • Upvote (+1) 4
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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