Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

poedacrow

Halo 4

39 posts in this topic

Any other Halo enthusiasts out there?

Started playing this game years ago on an old Pentium 2 machine (256k processor-yep that's right- 40gb HD and...um...no Bluray) and haven't looked back since. I've since graduated to 3 xbox360s throughout the house...couldn't live without 'em.

For some reason this franchise has a combination of storyline, action, and online multiplayer that I find intoxicating and addictive. Can't wait till Nov 6th!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm looking forward to it. I'm hoping 343 can redeem the series after Bungie's last crapfest in Reach. That was a horrible game all the way around.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm looking forward to it as well. Everyone who has played it so far has said it plays way more like Halo 3 than Reach. Which is a very good thing to me, i played like 2500 games on halo 3.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Echo the same sentiments as above. Playing Reach felt like an entirely different game (well I guess it was) Just finished playing the 20th anniversary Combat Evolved remaster and think I'll spend the bye week playing Halo 3...had enough football for a while. :surrender:

@t3hran; so far it looks like 343 has a done a pretty good job keeping the same feel. Might see a Halo 5 and 6
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='poedacrow' timestamp='1351299369' post='1204356']
@t3hran; so far it looks like 343 has a done a pretty good job keeping the same feel. Might see a Halo 5 and 6
[/quote]

That's not even a question, this is a planned new trilogy as a start. There's no way Microsoft doesn't make enough money off of this to cancel those two games.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks really good, looks like they took the concepts of Reach, but actually make them work well . I still play Reach though, if anyone wants to play some Halo(doesn't matter which one); let me know.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking forward to H4. I personally liked Reach. Anyone want to play H4 when it drops can add me since I'll have it on release date. EnVyXCaLiBeR
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='EnVy_CaLiBeR' timestamp='1351380541' post='1204668']
Looking forward to H4. I personally liked Reach. Anyone want to play H4 when it drops can add me since I'll have it on release date. EnVyXCaLiBeR
[/quote]Yeah I actually enjoyed Reach's MP, the single player was so-so. I think if the forge world maps weren't so gray and colorless they would probably be more enjoyable to play on.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='codizzle' timestamp='1351327467' post='1204442']
I'll wait to see it before I buy it..

Reach was that bad
[/quote]

Just curious, why didn't you like Reach? It's so rare I find someone who shares that viewpoint with me. I hated how they violated the established Halo storyline to the point where there were logical inconsistencies that one could spot if the only game they played was Reach, without reading the books. I wasn't a fan of how they changed the guns, as the BR-55 was established as being available at the same time as Reach, at least in the prototype format, and the DMR just did not feel the same. And most of the special abilities were wonky. I thought Halo 3 was a much better game all around.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='T3hRaven' timestamp='1351386429' post='1204701']
Just curious, why didn't you like Reach? It's so rare I find someone who shares that viewpoint with me. I hated how they violated the established Halo storyline to the point where there were logical inconsistencies that one could spot if the only game they played was Reach, without reading the books. I wasn't a fan of how they changed the guns, as the BR-55 was established as being available at the same time as Reach, at least in the prototype format, and the DMR just did not feel the same. And most of the special abilities were wonky. I thought Halo 3 was a much better game all around.
[/quote]How exactly did they violate the Halo storyline, was it that the fact that the S3's had the same armor in that game as the S2's. I mean your right in the fact that they messed with the Cannon, but the games to me trump any other form of media; whether it be Books, shorts stories, films doesn't matter. It's not like they have George Lucas running the series. Bungie had the right to mess/add to the story; after all they created Halo. I think the only reason they brought the DMR into the game was because they felt there would be much more balance between the AR vs DMR opposed to an AR vs BR. I mean lets face it the AR in Halo 3 was probably the most useless weapon in the entire series(outside of that disgrace they called a magnum). The BR was practically a utility weapon in Halo 3; you could use it in every situation possible. It made weapons like the AR obsolete. However I also agree that Halo 3 is the better game, but for different reasons.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Cville-Raven' timestamp='1351388874' post='1204731']
How exactly did they violate the Halo storyline, was it that the fact that the S3's had the same armor in that game as the S2's. I mean your right in the fact that they messed with the Cannon, but the games to me trump any other form of media; whether it be Books, shorts stories, films doesn't matter. It's not like they have George Lucas running the series. Bungie had the right to mess/add to the story; after all they created Halo. I think the only reason they brought the DMR into the game was because they felt there would be much more balance between the AR vs DMR opposed to an AR vs BR. I mean lets face it the AR in Halo 3 was probably the most useless weapon in the entire series(outside of that disgrace they called a magnum). The BR was practically a utility weapon in Halo 3; you could use it in every situation possible. It made weapons like the AR obsolete. However I also agree that Halo 3 is the better game, but for different reasons.
[/quote]

I wish I would have saved my list, when I first finished Reach I was really ticked and just went off on the game. The flaws I remember start with the Spartan III's themselves. They were a mass produced military unit designed specifically for suicide missions and black ops. They would not have been stationed on Reach, no one would know about them, and they certainly would not have a Spartan II working with them at that point in time. I haven't read the book in a while, but I believe in the The Fall of Reach that the Pillar of Autumn was already in space when the Covenant attacked, they would not have been on dry dock on the planet. Furthermore, I don't believe there would be any dry dock on the planet. The spaceships were built in space to overlook the problems encountered by building something that can handle the forces of a planetary gravity well, and while Halcyon-class cruisers were considered more reinforced than most other ships they still should have been fixing it in the shipyards in space. All of Reach's weapons were portrayed as dumbed down versions of the weapons of the previous games, yet the events between the Fall of Reach and the Battle of Earth are only months apart (August 2552 to October 2552). There is no logical way in which the technology would progress so far in that span of time. I also felt like the removal of dual-wielding threw off the balance of multiplayer, especially in close quarter combat. I wish I could find the list I made, there are a lot more that I don't remember because it's been so long. There were a few things that were inconsistent in the game's storyline itself that I wish I could remember because that proves the game's story sucks without bringing in the other outside elements.

You make an interesting point about not having a Halo czar overseeing the series a la George Lucas, but all of the books are officially licensed, and to my knowledge the stories were approved by Bungie. If they wanted to go in a different direction they should not have let the writers go forward with their stories. The established canon is well done for the most part, and there really wasn't a reason to go outside of that canon for the game. Bungie had an opportunity to showcase a future-realistic, logical start to their entire franchise and they pissed that opportunity down the track.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't get into the storyline that much at all..
Basing most of my opinion off of multiplayer..

My main hate is they BR. Best weapon in Any FPS I've played.. Loved that gun..

And the maps were ten times better.. Pit and guardian are absolutely awesome maps
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='T3hRaven' timestamp='1351393538' post='1204747']
I wish I would have saved my list, when I first finished Reach I was really ticked and just went off on the game. The flaws I remember start with the Spartan III's themselves. They were a mass produced military unit designed specifically for suicide missions and black ops. They would not have been stationed on Reach, no one would know about them, and they certainly would not have a Spartan II working with them at that point in time. I haven't read the book in a while, but I believe in the The Fall of Reach that the Pillar of Autumn was already in space when the Covenant attacked, they would not have been on dry dock on the planet. Furthermore, I don't believe there would be any dry dock on the planet. The spaceships were built in space to overlook the problems encountered by building something that can handle the forces of a planetary gravity well, and while Halcyon-class cruisers were considered more reinforced than most other ships they still should have been fixing it in the shipyards in space. All of Reach's weapons were portrayed as dumbed down versions of the weapons of the previous games, yet the events between the Fall of Reach and the Battle of Earth are only months apart (August 2552 to October 2552). There is no logical way in which the technology would progress so far in that span of time. I also felt like the removal of dual-wielding threw off the balance of multiplayer, especially in close quarter combat. I wish I could find the list I made, there are a lot more that I don't remember because it's been so long. There were a few things that were inconsistent in the game's storyline itself that I wish I could remember because that proves the game's story sucks without bringing in the other outside elements.

You make an interesting point about not having a Halo czar overseeing the series a la George Lucas, but all of the books are officially licensed, and to my knowledge the stories were approved by Bungie. If they wanted to go in a different direction they should not have let the writers go forward with their stories. The established canon is well done for the most part, and there really wasn't a reason to go outside of that canon for the game. Bungie had an opportunity to showcase a future-realistic, logical start to their entire franchise and they pissed that opportunity down the track.
[/quote]Well to some degree I think the main reason the game's story is entirely different from "The Fall of Reach" is probably so that people who read the Books cannot predict whats going to happen next, as well as introduce new characters. They do the same thing with the Walking Dead. BTW my whole point about George Lucas was for entirely negative reasons. You want to see a storyline get ruined: go look at Star wars. What Lucas is doing with it is absolutely disgraceful.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='codizzle' timestamp='1351403742' post='1204784']
I didn't get into the storyline that much at all..
Basing most of my opinion off of multiplayer..

My main hate is they BR. Best weapon in Any FPS I've played.. Loved that gun..

And the maps were ten times better.. Pit and guardian are absolutely awesome maps
[/quote]Dude the BR was probably the most unbalanced weapon; I mean I loved the gun, but it just made other guns useless. I have to agree with the maps part. If Reach actually had creative maps and not maps that were just from singleplayer, then it could have been better. When you play on the maps that 343 made for Reach, the game plays a lot better.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Made other guns useless? Power weapons were still productive... I wouldn't want any other weapon (besides power weapons) to be anywhere near as strong as the main weapon of the game

The BR was amazing.. I absolutely hate Reach's guns.. All of them

The game sucked so bad MLG stopped it last season..
I honesty haven't met any serious gamer who wasn't just a Halo fanboy who actually liked the game

Honestly compare Halo 2 to Reach and try and keep a straight face
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='codizzle' timestamp='1351443757' post='1204918']
Made other guns useless? Power weapons were still productive... I wouldn't want any other weapon (besides power weapons) to be anywhere near as strong as the main weapon of the game

The BR was amazing.. I absolutely hate Reach's guns.. All of them

The game sucked so bad MLG stopped it last season..
I honesty haven't met any serious gamer who wasn't just a Halo fanboy who actually liked the game

Honestly compare Halo 2 to Reach and try and keep a straight face
[/quote]Well that would be just silly to compare Halo 2 to any of the other Halo games outside of maybe 3. I wasn't referring to Power weapons because they are blatantly obviously useful; I was really referring to other guns as in AR(not that it wasnt useless to begin with), Shotty(if you dont consider it a power weapon), plasma rifle, hell even the Brute shot. Four shoting was probably the most boring form of combat in the game outside of the good old firing an entire clip of an AR and then beat down combo. It just makes the game so predictable.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='T3hRaven' timestamp='1351393538' post='1204747']
I wish I would have saved my list, when I first finished Reach I was really ticked and just went off on the game. The flaws I remember start with the Spartan III's themselves. They were a mass produced military unit designed specifically for suicide missions and black ops. They would not have been stationed on Reach, no one would know about them, and they certainly would not have a Spartan II working with them at that point in time. I haven't read the book in a while, but I believe in the The Fall of Reach that the Pillar of Autumn was already in space when the Covenant attacked, they would not have been on dry dock on the planet. Furthermore, I don't believe there would be any dry dock on the planet. The spaceships were built in space to overlook the problems encountered by building something that can handle the forces of a planetary gravity well, and while Halcyon-class cruisers were considered more reinforced than most other ships they still should have been fixing it in the shipyards in space. All of Reach's weapons were portrayed as dumbed down versions of the weapons of the previous games, yet the events between the Fall of Reach and the Battle of Earth are only months apart (August 2552 to October 2552). There is no logical way in which the technology would progress so far in that span of time. I also felt like the removal of dual-wielding threw off the balance of multiplayer, especially in close quarter combat. I wish I could find the list I made, there are a lot more that I don't remember because it's been so long. There were a few things that were inconsistent in the game's storyline itself that I wish I could remember because that proves the game's story sucks without bringing in the other outside elements.

You make an interesting point about not having a Halo czar overseeing the series a la George Lucas, but all of the books are officially licensed, and to my knowledge the stories were approved by Bungie. If they wanted to go in a different direction they should not have let the writers go forward with their stories. The established canon is well done for the most part, and there really wasn't a reason to go outside of that canon for the game. Bungie had an opportunity to showcase a future-realistic, logical start to their entire franchise and they pissed that opportunity down the track.
[/quote]Just curious have you read the new books by Karen Travis and if so, what is your opinion of them? I've heard mostly bad things about them, Nylund's were probably the best of the series.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Cville-Raven' timestamp='1351474243' post='1205228']
Just curious have you read the new books by Karen Travis and if so, what is your opinion of them? I've heard mostly bad things about them, Nylund's were probably the best of the series.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, I'm not caught up on the novels. I'm in a backlog of stuff with Game of Thrones and everything else I need to read. The ones I've read are The Fall of Reach, The Flood, First Strike, Ghosts of Onyx, Contact Harvest, The Cole Protocol, Evolutions, and The Graphic Novel. I haven't even read the Forerunner Saga yet. I thought the best one was Contact Harvest though, Staten did a good job of furthering the characterization of Johnson.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='T3hRaven' timestamp='1351474978' post='1205230']
Unfortunately, I'm not caught up on the novels. I'm in a backlog of stuff with Game of Thrones and everything else I need to read. The ones I've read are The Fall of Reach, The Flood, First Strike, Ghosts of Onyx, Contact Harvest, The Cole Protocol, Evolutions, and The Graphic Novel. I haven't even read the Forerunner Saga yet. I thought the best one was Contact Harvest though, Staten did a good job of furthering the characterization of Johnson.
[/quote]Yeah I liked that one as well. I personally enjoyed Ghost of Onyx the most, however I would really like them to make a ODST series.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would make a lot of sense for someone to do it. I wouldn't mind seeing them expand on Sergeant Buck, but I was in the minority that liked Halo: ODST. I think they had some good characters in that game and a good story.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='T3hRaven' timestamp='1351475767' post='1205236']
It would make a lot of sense for someone to do it. I wouldn't mind seeing them expand on Sergeant Buck, but I was in the minority that liked Halo: ODST. I think they had some good characters in that game and a good story.
[/quote]Same here man, I loved ODST; I thought it had the most immersive/dark story in the series. Really hope they make another game.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Cville-Raven' timestamp='1351798403' post='1207258']
IGN just gave this game a 9.8, Oh meh god this game should be awesome.
[/quote]

The Escapist gave it 4/5 stars, saying the single player requires more knowledge of the outside source material like the books and Forward Unto Dawn, the pretty good web series.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='T3hRaven' timestamp='1351810312' post='1207416']
The Escapist gave it 4/5 stars, saying the single player requires more knowledge of the outside source material like the books and Forward Unto Dawn, the pretty good web series.
[/quote]Dont necessarily know why the game should be faulted for that. I heard the campaign is rather amazing.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Cville-Raven' timestamp='1351816105' post='1207485']
Dont necessarily know why the game should be faulted for that. I heard the campaign is rather amazing.
[/quote]

It's not common knowledge, sometimes its frowned upon to include outside source material. I don't mind because I've read what I need to, or at least I'm assuming so.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the best start to a Halo game since Combat Evolved. I'm quite pleased thus far.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Cville-Raven' timestamp='1351816105' post='1207485']
Dont necessarily know why the game should be faulted for that. I heard the campaign is rather amazing.
[/quote]

In the middle of playing the campaign now and imho it's an absolute hoot! I admittedly prefer campaign mode and this one does not fail. Reminiscent of the first "Halo-Combat Evolved" in that strategy and planning are important and I've never used outside sources to complete them, but that's just me. A lot of my friends are digging the on-line play as well. Looks like MS studios and 343 have got a solid hit on their hands. Off to kill more grunts...peace!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='T3hRaven' timestamp='1352273497' post='1212622']
This is the best start to a Halo game since Combat Evolved.
[/quote]
ditto!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finished. That was definitely the best Halo campaign since Combat Evolved, if not the best one in the series. I'm really impressed, the story finally meant something again. If I had to nitpick anything, there were failures in music and sound design, and of course the guns are far too similar across all three factions.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites