Author Topic: Halo?  (Read 5107 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline LeetFidle

  • Camper
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
  • Poop!
Re: Halo?
« Reply #20 on: September 01, 2007, 11:16:33 pm »
name a good game then 4 year.
Holy Poop!

Offline kingkitty

  • Soldier
  • **
  • Posts: 131
  • Yes!
Re: Halo?
« Reply #21 on: September 01, 2007, 11:29:36 pm »
The controls are terrible, even for having to use **** analog sticks, try to do a 180 with one of those and it could send you running for a lazer mouse.

Great multiplayer? are you kidding me? We have round-em-up weapons style so you start with some piece of **** and someone blasts you with the best weapons on the map. Don't start with good multiplayer, its a bunch of nine year olds on some monthly fee service.

Graphics? That shouldn't even count. What the hell is that bull****. Putting good graphics on a bad game is like wrapping a **** in a candy wrapper, it looks like chocolate but when you try it, its ****.

Cool weapons? Yeah thats about as impressive as a Wisconsin tourist attraction. Well this one is a generic sub machine gun, and this one is a lazer thingy, and this one shoots a rocket, and this one has a scope NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE

Halo series is mediocre at best, the people who like it are usually easily impressed or just never played a good game in their life.
Oh wow.

You actually have trouble with...the controls? Are you kidding me? You move with one analog and aim with the other. Hurr durr.

Multiplayer is a bit more than "get the best weapon and win the game". Each weapon has a strong point and a weak point. You play on (mostly) solid levels.

I like your metaphor, now if only you would use it on a game that DOES suck.

Cool- Slang. a.great; fine; excellent: a real cool comic. By cool I simply meant "great". And I think the weapons are just great. Nice design, nice balance. Etc.

a-4-year-old I actually thought your name was just a joke. But with this "HALO IS THE MOST MEDIOCRE SERIES EVER!!! AND ANYONE WHO LIKES IT DOESN'T KNOW A GOOD GAME~!" kinda makes me thing twice.

I've given my reasons. And I've even given a source such as the silly meta critic ratings Halo and Halo 2 have received. Anyways this whole discussion is silly, by looking at this thread it's obvious there's no use in changing anyone's mind. You will either hate it or love it.


....I'm going to watch TV.



« Last Edit: September 01, 2007, 11:35:47 pm by kingkitty »
I'm away.

Offline a-4-year-old

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
Re: Halo?
« Reply #22 on: September 01, 2007, 11:39:18 pm »
Half Life, easy. Mods, it has a unique way of presenting the story to the person while they are still playing the game. It made the experience amazing. Oh and they actually made a decent sequel instead of repackaging with a "new" "story"

Yeah lets talk about the sequel, we have a unique weapon that takes full advantage of the ridiculously great physics. A great story with an amazing experience with super detailed character. Have you ever seen some of the interviews with them? every character is a huge undertaking, even some old guy that lets you into lost coast is super high detail.

Take a break from shooters.

Almost everything from Maxis is ****ing great. Watching your sims make it or crash and burn? PRICELESS. Even 1995 SimAnt. yeah, you have about a million ways to die, and nothing is more fun then taking down a spider with a horde of black ants, then destroying the red army (... no pun intended)

oh and not to be forgotten

LEGEND OF ****ING ZELDA

ocarina of time, yeah, z targeting was freaking revolutionary, and an unprecedented use of music as a part of the puzzles, the story, and the entire land of hyrule

alright kingkitty, I can't let you have the last word, especially if you are going to say something stupid.

My whole ****ing point about the controls was not that they were hard, its that they are so limiting. You can't flick your crosshairs around like a mouse and you don't have the fine tuning precision of the mouse, so you basically have to shoot in their general direction.

If you want to talk about their "weak points" you of course mean the pistol is useless, and an uberweapon like the rocket launcher has to get reloaded just after you blow them to bits.

I happen to think those critics are ****ing idiots. "oh my god this game is so cool, its like every game I ever played before but not as fun!"
« Last Edit: September 01, 2007, 11:49:16 pm by a-4-year-old »
If we hit the bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate. -Zapp Brannigan

Offline LeetFidle

  • Camper
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
  • Poop!
Re: Halo?
« Reply #23 on: September 01, 2007, 11:50:01 pm »
none of those lets u play multiplayer.   
Holy Poop!

Offline kingkitty

  • Soldier
  • **
  • Posts: 131
  • Yes!
Re: Halo?
« Reply #24 on: September 02, 2007, 12:20:40 am »
Half Life, easy. Mods, it has a unique way of presenting the story to the person while they are still playing the game. It made the experience amazing. Oh and they actually made a decent sequel instead of repackaging with a "new" "story"

Yeah lets talk about the sequel, we have a unique weapon that takes full advantage of the ridiculously great physics. A great story with an amazing experience with super detailed character. Have you ever seen some of the interviews with them? every character is a huge undertaking, even some old guy that lets you into lost coast is super high detail.

Take a break from shooters.

Almost everything from Maxis is ****ing great. Watching your sims make it or crash and burn? PRICELESS. Even 1995 SimAnt. yeah, you have about a million ways to die, and nothing is more fun then taking down a spider with a horde of black ants, then destroying the red army (... no pun intended)

oh and not to be forgotten

LEGEND OF ****ING ZELDA

ocarina of time, yeah, z targeting was freaking revolutionary, and an unprecedented use of music as a part of the puzzles, the story, and the entire land of hyrule

alright kingkitty, I can't let you have the last word, especially if you are going to say something stupid.

My whole ****ing point about the controls was not that they were hard, its that they are so limiting. You can't flick your crosshairs around like a mouse and you don't have the fine tuning precision of the mouse, so you basically have to shoot in their general direction.

If you want to talk about their "weak points" you of course mean the pistol is useless, and an uberweapon like the rocket launcher has to get reloaded just after you blow them to bits.

I happen to think those critics are ****ing idiots. "oh my god this game is so cool, its like every game I ever played before but not as fun!"
Jesus Christ get off your fucking high horse.

Honestly your whole "controls are limiting" can be added to any console fps. But really it's not much of a problem considering your character walks at a methodical pace and there aren't any super fast enemies trying to kill you in all directions. Seriously I have absolutely no problem with the controls. If you don't dig them, then maybe console first person shooters isn't your thing?

And now we move on to the weapons area.... Seriously what are you trying to knack at? The pistol IS weak unless you duel it with another weapon....and yes you have to reload every time you blow someone to bits with your grenade launcher because....a rocket launcher that shoots 10 rockets in a row and never reloads is pretty bad balance...

I can understand if you disagree with the praising critics; everyone is entitled to an opinion, but calling them "fucking idiots"? The same "fucking idiots" who put Half-Life 2 and Ocarina of Time in such high honors also? 

a-four-year old I also think those other games are just grand but other people can simply say "HALF-LIFE SUCKS BECAUSE IT'S REPETITIVE!!" or "WTF IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF ANTS, WHO GIVES A SHIT" or even "OCARINA OF TIME WAS LAME AS HELL, BRB GOING TO PLAY SUM RESIDENT EVILZ". And you know what, it's their own opinion. Heck even if you try to give them reason to how great those games really are, they might still disagree and call you an idiot. But it's ok because there's bound to be people in the world who will hate certain things with a passion....some reasons include "being too mainstream", "being on a system I hate", or "just because".

And this is where I stop arguing with you a-4-year-old. If you hate it, you hate it. But I like it and YES I've played many other great games besides Halo.

All this halo shit is nerdy btw.


I'm away.

Offline a-4-year-old

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
Re: Halo?
« Reply #25 on: September 02, 2007, 12:35:06 am »
none of those lets u play multiplayer.   
Are you kidding? Are you serious? You have to be joking. NOBODY is that stupid.

How about counterstrike, and half life deathmatch, counterstrike comes with half life 2, and half life 2 deathmatch? Sims online buddy and the DS version of legend of zelda has wifi battle mode.



Hold it, You give me some "points" on how halo doesn't suck and I countered all of them with perfectly good reasons why the game is trash and all you have to say is "well you are entitled to your opinion" yeah fuck that, so let me tell you again the awful truth of why you wasted your money on a shitty game.

Controls: "Honestly your whole "controls are limiting" can be added to any console fps."
Yeah, consoles with shitty control schemes.
"there aren't any super fast enemies trying to kill you in all directions."
UH YEAH THERE ARE THEY HAVE VEHIKLZ ITS A FEATURE

Weapons: "Seriously what are you trying to knack at?"
That the whole fucking game is the same fucking game as every fucking FPS ever fucking made thats what I'm fucking knacking at.
yeah, reloading after someone dies sure is going to help the dead guy out now isn't it, thats balance for you!

Critics don't know shit, they go with the fad. one reviewer waited for the hype to die down and gave it an 85% or something close. When the reviewers played legend of zelda for weeks before showing the review they still gave it above a 90%
Often Critics review shit is like "Well this looked pretty so it gets a ten there, and the guns all looked pretty so it gets a ten there as well, and the story also looked really pretty so that gets a ten, so this game wins."

You want to go off and say you like halo thats fine but you look like a dumbass when you make some stupid point like "I think its fun" and "thats not true"
If we hit the bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate. -Zapp Brannigan

Offline Iridescent

  • Soldier
  • **
  • Posts: 147
  • Also known as Eoi
Re: Halo?
« Reply #26 on: September 02, 2007, 09:31:01 am »
Okay, I have to pop my head into this.
I don't mind people saying I don't like the game due to various reasons. But only if those reasons make sense, therefore I will only counter a few of your points a-4-year-old where I believe you're wrong. Other points however, you may be right.

You mentioned that with analog sticks you can't turn around quick enough and be precise enough. The changeable sensitivity helps in making you turn around quicker, a LOT quicker. I played on high sensitivity. But then I'm not precise? I got nearly all headshots with sniper rifles, only missing when they used vehicles or jumped around like heck.
So I found the controls perfect to use. Easy to reach every button and the most accessed are nearest the fingers.

Weapons have all the usual stuff, SMG's, Assualt Rifle's, Sniper's etc. Like any old game. But so does EVERY other game, so I can't say its a drawback. With the coming halo 3 there are neater guns though.
A small new invention was the needler though, it ain't anything glorious, but it was a neat little gun.

Critics also do know what they're doing. In my life of reading reviews and seeing if they are actually reviewed properly there are probably only 2 or 3 review which were badly done.
In fact, if you read reviews you see they rate the game in a number of ways. Gameplay, Replayability, Graphics, Audio and sometimes more.
So they can't give it a 9/10 simply due to good graphics and sounds.
They sometimes also have a little pro's and con's bit, pointing out anomalies to an otherwise good section of the game.

To back you up on one point though. Yes console FPS's (as well as Halo) have fast moving enemies (the vehicles for example). However it isn't hard to kill them, learn the system and beat it. Don't sit there and complain about it. There are fast moving enemies on PC FPS's which are just as hard to beat.
No animated signatures
Rememer that people

Offline Valorman

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
Re: Halo?
« Reply #27 on: September 02, 2007, 10:44:16 am »

Critics don't know ****, they go with the fad. one reviewer waited for the hype to die down and gave it an 85% or something close. When the reviewers played legend of zelda for weeks before showing the review they still gave it above a 90%
Often Critics review **** is like "Well this looked pretty so it gets a ten there, and the guns all looked pretty so it gets a ten there as well, and the story also looked really pretty so that gets a ten, so this game wins."
Haha, wow you're a moron.
.

Offline Domokun

  • Soldier
  • **
  • Posts: 136
  • Él Madsen!
Re: Halo?
« Reply #28 on: September 02, 2007, 11:05:53 am »
I never played Halo. And never will. Cuz i dont want to. Cuz i think its crap. Why i think its crap? Beacuse its crap. Mmkay?
Ingame Nick : ~FaF |F~ Madsen
Found in Realistic CTF/INF server near you!

Offline a-4-year-old

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
Re: Halo?
« Reply #29 on: September 02, 2007, 11:43:06 am »
You mentioned that with analog sticks you can't turn around quick enough and be precise enough. The changeable sensitivity helps in making you turn around quicker, a LOT quicker. I played on high sensitivity. But then I'm not precise? I got nearly all headshots with sniper rifles, only missing when they used vehicles or jumped around like heck.
So I found the controls perfect to use. Easy to reach every button and the most accessed are nearest the fingers.

Weapons have all the usual stuff, SMG's, Assualt Rifle's, Sniper's etc. Like any old game. But so does EVERY other game, so I can't say its a drawback. With the coming halo 3 there are neater guns though.
A small new invention was the needler though, it ain't anything glorious, but it was a neat little gun.

Critics also do know what they're doing. In my life of reading reviews and seeing if they are actually reviewed properly there are probably only 2 or 3 review which were badly done.
In fact, if you read reviews you see they rate the game in a number of ways. Gameplay, Replayability, Graphics, Audio and sometimes more.
So they can't give it a 9/10 simply due to good graphics and sounds.
They sometimes also have a little pro's and con's bit, pointing out anomalies to an otherwise good section of the game.

To back you up on one point though. Yes console FPS's (as well as Halo) have fast moving enemies (the vehicles for example). However it isn't hard to kill them, learn the system and beat it. Don't sit there and complain about it. There are fast moving enemies on PC FPS's which are just as hard to beat.
Mouse and keyboard beat the sticks any day. It has way more buttons for more moves, and yes you do lose precision when you have really high sensitivity. You don't really make a point when you use the sniper rifle, because the sensitivity goes back down as soon as you scope.

My point was that it wasn't really a feature that you get the same bland weapons.

Reviewers don't know what they are doing, they separate into categories only to sugarcoat them. So here is my "review":

Gameplay: It's the same thing as tribes 2, so I don't see any innovation here, and since this is a blatant ripoff it gets a 4/10
Replayability: The only challenging part of the singleplayer is legendary mode, so you can play that, but it is also super linear with no puzzles or other such minigame things to break up the monotony of running through rooms and killing all the bad things. 5/10
Graphics: Pretty much the only reason you could buy the game, but they are outshined by half life 2 which was released around the same time as halo 2. I'll give halo 2 some points because it was on a different system then half life. so it gets an 8/10
Audio: This is a pretty stupid section which could easily be merged with graphics, but this game needs points pretty badly so I will still give it props for its orchestral and well done music. 9/10
Controls: The controls are not really that innovative, and they aren't really that great because of the analog controller. We have seen these controls in the past, but I will give them points anyway for their mediocrity. 7/10

add it all up: 33/50 or a 66%

Now I am going to tell you why this is a terrible system, this is the basic reviewer's tool, it has five catagories and for some reason graphics and audio are worth twice the number of points that good gameplay is. What the fuck? 40% of your score is based on how pretty it is. Replayability? thats a load of crap. you never start from scratch again playing an mmo, why would you want to? you just keep going until there is nothing left to get, does that mean that an mmo can only get an 80% no that just means the system for reviewing is just retarded.
If we hit the bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate. -Zapp Brannigan

Offline ds dude

  • Soldat Beta Team
  • Flagrunner
  • ******
  • Posts: 631
  • Lolicon Forever.
Re: Halo?
« Reply #30 on: September 02, 2007, 12:02:50 pm »
Wow, 4-year-old is on the roll on this topic..

Anyway.. Mouse and keyboard beat analog forever. Its so much easier to hit targets etc..


And I think its stupid that they put out halo 2 for vista.. its way better for xbox, plus more servers on live.
This signature was borked. Now it is not.

Offline Iridescent

  • Soldier
  • **
  • Posts: 147
  • Also known as Eoi
Re: Halo?
« Reply #31 on: September 02, 2007, 01:19:37 pm »
I won't use the quoting system as its too long and I can't be arsed separate it all out. So I'm referring to a-4-year-old's last post.

Firstly, I was accurate with any other weapon as well (apart from the SMG which simply sprays). Even with full sensitivity. At my height I killed people with ease. About the sensitivity decreasing when in scoped mode. I don't know if thats true, but I believe you. In which case, isn't that simply a feature which allows for better gaming?

Graphics and audio have never been worth twice that of gameplay (unless put together...obviously). But then the reviewer mentions that "even though you could the eyeball exploding, accompanied by a satisfying 'squish', the game simply does not offer enough gameplay options".
You also gave a half arsed attempt at reviewing saying the replayability of halo is useless because its linear. Replayability also has to do with multiplayer, you're still (re)playing the game.
Audio is extremely important in any game. Firstly the job of the audio artists is extremely tough to nail everything down. Killzone for example did very well in getting the gun sounds good. Music plays an important part as it sets the pace for a game, it makes you rush, slow down, look around etc.
Controls? I've never seen a review give a section for controls, even if they did they wouldn't say its bad because its on a controller. It was an xbox exclusive, it'd obviously use a controller and nothing else. It'd be like giving praise that it utilises speakers.
No animated signatures
Rememer that people

Offline a-4-year-old

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
Re: Halo?
« Reply #32 on: September 02, 2007, 02:13:11 pm »
I won't use the quoting system as its too long and I can't be arsed separate it all out. So I'm referring to a-4-year-old's last post.

Firstly, I was accurate with any other weapon as well (apart from the SMG which simply sprays). Even with full sensitivity. At my height I killed people with ease. About the sensitivity decreasing when in scoped mode. I don't know if thats true, but I believe you. In which case, isn't that simply a feature which allows for better gaming?

Graphics and audio have never been worth twice that of gameplay (unless put together...obviously). But then the reviewer mentions that "even though you could the eyeball exploding, accompanied by a satisfying 'squish', the game simply does not offer enough gameplay options".
You also gave a half arsed attempt at reviewing saying the replayability of halo is useless because its linear. Replayability also has to do with multiplayer, you're still (re)playing the game.
Audio is extremely important in any game. Firstly the job of the audio artists is extremely tough to nail everything down. Killzone for example did very well in getting the gun sounds good. Music plays an important part as it sets the pace for a game, it makes you rush, slow down, look around etc.
Controls? I've never seen a review give a section for controls, even if they did they wouldn't say its bad because its on a controller. It was an xbox exclusive, it'd obviously use a controller and nothing else. It'd be like giving praise that it utilises speakers.
I <3 quotes

"In which case, isn't that simply a feature which allows for better gaming?"
Not exactly a first.
Thats part of the reason halo is so ridiculously overrated. People give it way too much credit. Bungie really didn't do anything new. Old boring linear singleplayer, old boring weapons, old boring multiplayer that somehow rips off of UT, Goldeneye and any other FPS under the sun.

replayability or replay value or lasting appeal is pretty low when all the levels are so linear, what scores points in that category would be alternate endings, or other methods of winning (using the gravity gun to kill enemies for example) you don't get points for having something basic like easy medium and hard.
If we hit the bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate. -Zapp Brannigan

Offline Iridescent

  • Soldier
  • **
  • Posts: 147
  • Also known as Eoi
Re: Halo?
« Reply #33 on: September 02, 2007, 04:14:22 pm »
I never said it was a first, then again you never said I did etc.
Anyways, I don't care if its a first or not. If it makes good gameplay why leave it out? If Unreal stopped putting in DM, TDM, CTF etc. simply because they'd been done before it'd get a bit disturbing.
Its not about making something new, well...it is. But not only that. Either make something new and make it good, or make something old good.
The warthog for example, a car, four wheels, steering wheel, machine gun on top. Old concept, earliest I know is the Willy's jeep used by the allied forces during WWII (other forces probably used similar things beforehand), but the warthog is an icon of halo because of how it handles, its feel, the look and everything about it. Halo with the 'hog would be a whole lot different.

Yes alternate endings improve replayability, so do other methods of winning. But firstly, those aren't the only ways of making it replayable (I already mentioned multiplayer games). Secondly, simply the use of the gravity gun doesn't make Half Life 2 replayable. Maybe for some yes, but simply to toy around with a gravity gun? Source Forts? There are plenty of other options. I would never dream about playing Half Life 2 again simply for the gravity gun, which I didn't think was amazing anyway. Was fun for the first few kills when throwing discs in Ravenholm, after that it got boring.
No animated signatures
Rememer that people

Offline a-4-year-old

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
Re: Halo?
« Reply #34 on: September 02, 2007, 04:27:45 pm »
bleep pick up that can bleep

It might have been ok if halo actually had something new, but it doesn't so it still pretty much sucks.
If we hit the bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate. -Zapp Brannigan

Offline LtKillroy

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • Killroy was here
Re: Halo?
« Reply #35 on: September 02, 2007, 05:04:03 pm »
Wow this is long. I would make a really long rant about why Halo sucks and you should actaully try a new game, but 4-year-old already did that. But I find it funny that they only rebuttal to 4-year is "yeah well its still good so yeah its good" and they have no real rebuttal back. Halo is just so bland, like 4-year said I have already played through say, Goldeneye, why should I buy the same game but better graphics? As for the guns, play F.E.A.R. if you want some cool guns; a gun that melts people's skin off, now that's cool. I buy FPS games generally for Multiplayer, so why would I buy Halo if I already have CS and Soldat, which are way better. Call of Duty 2-3 are good fun, which I play at my friends house, and if I ever get new games I need a good reason, and Halo has none. It's sole redeeming feature is it happened to get popular so many people bought it. Give me some good reasons to get Halo besides "Dood itz leik kewl and dere r aleens in it nd haz gude grafics nd stuf"
L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace

Offline Dascoo

  • Soldier
  • **
  • Posts: 200
  • banned from the forums
Re: Halo?
« Reply #36 on: September 02, 2007, 06:03:40 pm »
INCOMING DASCOO

What I like about Halo:

- Diverse enemies, which are intelligent and give you sometimes a good laugh. Plus, I get satisfied killing a Brute or an Elite.

- Not to mention I feel an emotional attachment to my marines ;_; So every time one dies I go back to a checkpoint to save his life.

- Epic storyline.

- Halo is unique when it comes to weapons when it comes to shielding, affect it has on enemies etc.

- For a console game, AND at the time when Halo 2 came out it was really amazing.

I don't think Halo is the best game ever, it does have it's problems. I just hate people who go LOL PEOPLE JUST LIKE HALO AND HALO 2 FOR GRAPHIX

Also Killroy sucks because #1) He's comparing F.E.A.R to Halo 2...which means he forgets HOW ****ING OLD HALO 2 IS #2) He enjoys Call of Duty games more, even though they're 10 times more repetitive, easy, and ****ing boring. Yes I even think the multiplayer of COD is worse then Halo. #3) I'm only reading page 2, I'll type more when I read the first page.

Conclusion: Stop comparing Halo to games that came out after it.

i hate everything about halo.

it's overrated in my opinion. same with half-life2.

i just don't like futuristic stuff, can't people learn to stay in the present. jeez.

You're the opposite of me, although I like games set in the present I hate....Fantasy games.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2007, 06:08:25 pm by Dascoo »

UnReQuitLo
ɹǝƃuɐɥɔɹǝƃıu

Offline PANZERCATWAGON

  • Camper
  • ***
  • Posts: 261
  • oh god: blowjobs
Re: Halo?
« Reply #37 on: September 02, 2007, 06:09:06 pm »
Not to mention I feel an emotional attachment to my marines ;_; So every time one dies I go back to a checkpoint to save his life.

You wussy.

I love killing them all and running away after Cortana declares you rampant.

Offline moomoo

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: Halo?
« Reply #38 on: September 02, 2007, 06:24:27 pm »
Halo is a fun game period.

No matter what you say its going to stand in video game history as one of the best console FPS ever.
Moooo

[retard] :D

Offline Graham

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1682
  • Southern
    • - uh oh -
Re: Halo?
« Reply #39 on: September 02, 2007, 06:26:59 pm »
Why are you people comparing shooters? You can't compare two shooters at all, age doesn't factor here too much. I never liked halo, not because its poorly made or the fact I hated the controls. I just don't like presentday or futuristic shooters. The only shooters I like are ww2 shooters, which means I love COD. The only shooter I liked that wasn't ww2 was Gears of War, but I would never buy or rent it.
@ii