|
|
Post by sherm on Nov 19, 2012 8:02:52 GMT -6
I'm not gonna lie, I was overall disappointed. Both from a gaming and machinima standpoint.
My reasoning:
-The spartans look more foreign than the actual aliens.
-No playable elites - this elminates tons of machinima possibilities
-Flood lacks the customization of original Infection - no possibility of Duck Hunt, Jenga, or infection game with anything but the Flood claw (hammers, etc.)
-As a matter of personal disappointment, ODSTs have been essentially eliminated, both their armor permutations and the soldiers themselves in Campaign and Spartan Ops
The list goes on. Overall I feel like I'm playing Call of Duty: Space.
Can anyone argue to the contrary?
|
|
|
|
Post by KP Spark on Nov 19, 2012 16:52:37 GMT -6
When I got Halo 4, I booted up the Campaign, played it, loved it, and realized that you couldn't access campaign files with theater. I thought oh well thats a shame and moved on. I tested the Forge, and it was pleasing. I saw that some of the gametypes weren't added in, which was very disappointing. I played the multiplayer, liked the weapons, liked Spartan Ops, and was pretty satisfied. Then I went online and witnessed the shitstorm. People whined about all these things and the fact that the Flood don't hold guns, whenever people rotate their guns go up, you can't play elites, etc.
These points are valid, but I feel we're all forgetting the limitless Forge possibilities, the fact that the single sandbox map has been replaced with three each with their own skin, a whole new diverse set of weapons as well as new individual ones, dozens of new pieces of armor and customization possibilities, and the ability to play Flood. And everyone is complaining about how they can't hold guns?? *Facepalm*
I think we're all forgetting the fact that we're telling stories with faceless clones of Master Chief, with the emotional complexity of a Boba Fett action figure. Halo Machinima has NEVER been perfect, and although it has taken a few steps back, its potential is no less than it was with Reach. So what if their guns rise up whenever they move? Civilians don't wear guns or armor, it didn't stop Jon CJG. Machinima isn't about realism, it never was, it was about expression. Utilizing limitations to make the best visual experience out of a video game possible. These "complaints" that everyone has are trivial at best.
And to all those of you who are going to say "well this is my opinion" or "well you're just telling us to shut up and deal with it". If you're arguing that this is an inferior Halo title because they didn't do what you specifically by design wanted them to do, you're nitpicking at best. Its not their job to cater to your every request, its their job to make a Halo game. I bought it, and I got a Halo game, and a damn good one at that. Why everyone can't just sit down and enjoy it, I'll never know.
|
|
|
|
Post by sherm on Nov 19, 2012 22:32:37 GMT -6
They sacrificed gameplay for aesthetics. Sure the forge possibilities are endless, but they've been endless since Halo 3, and I think I'm justified in saying that the collection of placeable objects in Halo 4 is almost exactly the same as Reach. Because it is. There's no way around it.
Now, given that the forge is essentially identical to Reach (with the exception of "delete all" and "magnet" tools), I would not be disappointed if this were the only con because I liked Reach's forge mode. However, Forge and Custom Games used to go hand in hand. But now there is a severe imbalance: we now possess unprecidented customization in Forge, but are severely limited in gametype modification.
Spark, you said people were asking why the game wasn't made exactly to their desires. This is not the case. I'm dumfounded as to why they thought it best to remove features that have been the norm for 2 previous titles, including but not limited to playable elites and customizable infected.
Now that's just from a gaming point of view. As a machinima engine, the game is gorgeous. But that's just it: the beauty is its lone strong point, and pretty graphics don't make a game fun. I would take a solid Nintendo 64 game over an sub-par Xbox 360 game any day.
[/rant]
|
|
|
|
Post by Danger Wasp on Nov 20, 2012 7:00:22 GMT -6
They sacrificed gameplay for aesthetics. Sure the forge possibilities are endless, but they've been endless since Halo 3, and I think I'm justified in saying that the collection of placeable objects in Halo 4 is almost exactly the same as Reach. Because it is. There's no way around it. Now, given that the forge is essentially identical to Reach (with the exception of "delete all" and "magnet" tools), I would not be disappointed if this were the only con because I liked Reach's forge mode. However, Forge and Custom Games used to go hand in hand. But now there is a severe imbalance: we now possess unprecidented customization in Forge, but are severely limited in gametype modification. Spark, you said people were asking why the game wasn't made exactly to their desires. This is not the case. I'm dumfounded as to why they thought it best to remove features that have been the norm for 2 previous titles, including but not limited to playable elites and customizable infected. Now that's just from a gaming point of view. As a machinima engine, the game is gorgeous. But that's just it: the beauty is its lone strong point, and pretty graphics don't make a game fun. I would take a solid Nintendo 64 game over an sub-par Xbox 360 game any day. [/rant] I'm going with Spark on this one. Halo 4 is a great game overall, with the epic multiplayer and Spartan ops mode, and the slightly improved forge mode. However I'm siding with your opinion on some of the few things 343 left out. Earlier 343 claimed that they will make Halo 4 machinima friendly (which they haven't done a good job at it. Nevertheless you can still make simple Halo 4 macinima, even though we can't lower our weapons forever when we walk. think of this: was it like that in Halo ce? no.people generally looked down with a magnum and stood there. STOOD THERE! now with theater mode you can still film the epic fight scenes, conversations, and plenty more. You just have to find a way to work with what you have for now. |
|
|
|
Post by sherm on Nov 20, 2012 23:17:55 GMT -6
now with theater mode you can still film the epic fight scenes, conversations, and plenty more. You just have to find a way to work with what you have for now. What new filming options do we have now (excluding Flood forms) that we didn't already have in Reach? |
|
|
|
Post by Danger Wasp on Nov 21, 2012 6:19:33 GMT -6
with theater mode you can still film the epic fight scenes, conversations, and plenty more. You just have to find a way to work with what you have for now. What new filming options do we have now (excluding Flood forms) that we didn't already have in Reach? none. That's why I'm saying we can still work with what we have, ass long as theater mode isn't gone, you can still film Halo:reach like machinima in halo 4. |
|
|
|
Post by sherm on Nov 21, 2012 11:04:42 GMT -6
There's my point. What's the point of a new game if you aren't making it any better?
|
|
|
|
Post by Danger Wasp on Nov 21, 2012 14:49:59 GMT -6
There's my point. What's the point of a new game if you aren't making it any better? They'll make it better soon as the updates arrive. or not |
|
|
|
Post by KP Spark on Nov 21, 2012 20:03:04 GMT -6
And you're thinking about moving to Call of Duty? Where there literally are no improvements aside from graphics and lazily rendered cut-scenes? If you're complaints about Halo were to cross over to CoD, the contrast would be insane.
Halo does improve the engine with each game. Everything has been built upon, Forge, Spartan Ops is a cool addition, the campaign's better written and more up to date, the multiplayer as well, the game customization being the only aspect that they delegated, which shouldn't be the basis for a critique on the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by sherm on Nov 22, 2012 0:53:30 GMT -6
And you're thinking about moving to Call of Duty? I absolutely am not. Though it would appear 343 has essentially forced the move upon us. Dominion? You mean Domination? Spartan Ops is a carbon copy of Spec Ops. And the controller scheme called Fishstick? The clever name can't hide the fact that they're buying in to so many features (previously) unique to CoD. And yes, the campaign was better written. Master Chief's struggle with his own humanity was fantastically portrayed. But the actual gameplay left so much to be desired. All vehicle combat sections lasted for about 90 seconds; gone are the days of Metropolis, Tsavo Highway, the Ark, the Covenant, and the end of ODST. The longsword and pelican segments were hardly combat, more like interactive cutscenes (hello again, Call of Duty). And the final mission was just as dull/repetative as Halo 2: simply clearing out enemies from identical structures, exactly how you just spent the entire campaign leading up to that. I hold Halo to a higher standard than Call of Duty. I suppose that's what makes it so much more disappointing when they miss that mark. |
|
|
|
Post by diamondproductions on Nov 23, 2012 5:44:40 GMT -6
I agree with all of Sherm's reasons, I think we'll see less Halo 4 Machinima's and people will stick with Halo Reach, because of less things you can do with 4. I didn't want to believe what people were saying about it until I bought and experienced the game for myself. But yeah it's disappointing.
My main reason for thinking that Halo 4 will not be that appealing to Machinimators is that the maps (Even the forge world like maps) don't have the size and scale that Halo Reach maps had. Does anyone else think they don't?
|
|
Ghost
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by Ghost on Dec 9, 2012 15:04:04 GMT -6
Don't get me wrong when I say this, I love Halo 4, I think it's the best one...... Graphically and SOME of the gameplay(Sorry, but it IS sorta like CoD, I won't lie and I understand why 343 did this). Halo 4 machinimas are impossible with no elites, no falcons/hornets, and the small maps. Granted, Halo 4 gave us the opportunity to actually be original, but it's slightly more harder. I would still make Halo 4 machinimas, but probably somthing not TOO big or something that won't need aliens and falcons. I'm gonna stick with Reach.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lambda VI on Dec 9, 2012 22:15:51 GMT -6
I absolutely am not. Though it would appear 343 has essentially forced the move upon us. Dominion? You mean Domination? Spartan Ops is a carbon copy of Spec Ops. And the controller scheme called Fishstick? The clever name can't hide the fact that they're buying in to so many features (previously) unique to CoD. Do you SERIOUSLY think that Call of Duty was the first game to have a domination game type? Not even close. Have you ever played a game made before 2007 excluding the first two Halos? |
|
|
|
Post by sherm on Dec 10, 2012 8:19:49 GMT -6
But Halo already had King of the Hill, which is similar enough, so the incorporation of a Domination analog (along with all the other undeniable CoD similarities) was unnecessary unless they deliberately wanted to mimic a previously-existing game.
|
|
kingsangos
New Member
"The King of Sangonia"
Posts: 10
|
Post by kingsangos on Dec 15, 2012 6:34:01 GMT -6
But Halo already had King of the Hill, which is similar enough, so the incorporation of a Domination analog (along with all the other undeniable CoD similarities) was unnecessary unless they deliberately wanted to mimic a previously-existing game. That's because 343 Industries and Game Companies are a Business first. They make games to make revenue, not to please communities. Since Call of Duty is one of the most successful franchises of this gaming era, what better way to attract more audiences then to take what makes the Call of Duty series good and put it into Halo while still keeping that traditional Halo "vanilla" gameplay in. It's an attempt to gain new audiences. Why stick with the same Halo Community which is slowly declining when you can try convincing new ones to join. More audiences = More money. |
|
