Support NeoGAF

[RiccochetJ]

Yeah, because Halo is really just DYING for iron-sights that impact the fluidity and speed of the combat, scripted set-pieces, unskippable cutscenes, more narrow corridors, and more QTEs. That fuckin' SOUL of CoD campaigns.

You didn't read his post did you? Just that last part.

 

[sflufan]

That EGM review was just as horrible in the negative direction as the IGN one was in the positive.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

You didn't read his post did you? Just that last part.

No, I've read the whole thing. It basically boils down to that, though. He feels the core gameplay has gotten stale and repetitive and it needs some freshening up.

And his ideas for freshening up being shallow implementations of other video games, with little regard for how that would work in a Halo title.

 

[TEH-CJ]

I can certainly explain my position, yes.

Let me start by saying that I don't think Halo 4 is a bad game by any stretch of the imagination.

It's think it looks great, I loved the multiplayer, and it's a very polished experience overall.

That being said, the campaign was essentially:

1.) OMGZ!! We're under attack/have to escape/have to stop so and so.
2.) Go blow up that shield generator/push that button/ kill a bunch of dudes!
3.) Now run back through the level and kill even more of the same 8 dudes!

Some of the indoor segments were really solid, but when playing the game in outdoor maps going through the scenarios mentioned above, it gold REALLY old REALLY quick.

If you played Rage, imagine the last level of that game, on repeat, for roughly 8 hours. That is essentially the structure of Halo 4. It forces you to use way too many bullets to kill the same enemies over and over and over again for hours with little variation on how that is accomplished.

I understand some people enjoy arena shooters of that ilk, but frankly, it was a real chore for me.

The funny thing is, the first 15 minutes was another story entirely. The intro was awesome. I honestly felt playing it that if the game kept this up for the entire run, it would have been a primary contender for GOTY and 10 on our scale.

But after that, the game quickly degenerated into the sequences outlined above, and I was left wishing it would get better, or mix it up a bit, or deliver some moments like the early stages of the game. But it didn't really manage to do so in my opinion.

Mind you, they tried to mix it up with some vehicle sequences, most of which were satisfying enough because, well, blowing shit up is fun - but on the whole, there's a lot of back-tracking, a lot of rubber-stamp environment design, and very little going on despite the size of the levels.

They do manage to pack their environment with a ton of objects, and they all look fantastic, but they never did anything spectacular with them in-game outside of the first mission, and that left the game feeling very flat and very repetitive from where I was sitting.

And since folks are so bent out of shape about my comment on iron sights, I'll elaborate a bit here, too.

The thought came to me when I noticed that there is in fact a controller option called "Fishstick" in Halo 4 that gives you the same layout and functionality as most FPS titles on the market by allowing you to swap your zoom function to the left trigger.

However, several of the key guns don't offer sight-focused views, meaning that you use your binoculars and immediately jump out to the standard viewing angle upon firing. It's very jarring, and smacks as a half-assed concession to folks who want that feature in-game.

And yeah, I know Halo fans like what they know, just like most fans of most games. A lot of people argue that a fully-implemented iron sight option would somehow pervert the purity of the game, but frankly, I think they're just afraid of change, and here's why:

At it's core, Halo is about massive, arena-style environments. Ranged combat plays a big role, and when facing key enemies, well-placed shots are critical. As such, aim is pretty fucking important. That being said, a good 50% (and I'm estimating here) of the guns have scope-based aiming components.

This means that the idea of zooming in and shooting isn't foreign to the series, and in fact, is a large part of your tactical arsenal as a player.

With that in mind, and the importance of head shots to combat, it seems like a very logical enhancement to me to offer the OPTION to make use of them. That way, you'd respect legacy folks who like they way their cake is baked, and also allow people who appreciate a higher degree of ease and realism alongside what I and many others feel is a more precise aiming to enjoy the feature.

The funny part is, the developer seems to at least acknowledge that there are some people out there who feel the same way, or the "Fishstick" option wouldn't even exist, so seeing so many call me a CoD fan boy because I believe a "proper" (or more to the point - complete) implementation of this scheme would actually be appreciated and enhance gameplay without impacting the overall design and difficulty of the game -- it just feels like fanboy knee-jerking to me.

And again, I get it. I'd be pissed if, say, Dark Souls suddenly became easy or SOCOM stopped trying to be a tactical shooter and became a Call of Du...err..ok, so that kind of happened with S4 - but anyways, I'm not suggesting that 343i get away from the roots of the series at all.

I'm suggesting that they actually build on them instead of rehashing them over and over again.

To me, Halo is about three core things:

1.) Story - People love the art, characters, and drama of this series, and understandably so. I don't think anything I've mentioned would change that one bit.

2.) Advanced AI Behaviors - The AI in Halo is amazing, and does some really crazy shit. I don't think that needs to stop, either.

3.) MP - The multiplayer in Halo is a well-respected crowd favorite, and it got a lot better with this iteration. I didn't say word one about them adopting anything from other games, though they already made that decision on their own. It didn't "kill" MP at all, and my guess is most will feel this is the best Halo MP experience yet.

Anyways, all that laid out on the table, my point is just that Halo's basic principals are still very true to the ones laid out in Combat Evolved. And sure, that's great for folks who are more in love with other areas of the game, but ultimately, if this were a sports game, we'd be calling Halo 4 a roster update with better graphics, and I think fans deserve more, even if they are afraid of it.

Based on the number of slams I've taken from people who haven't even played the game yet, it's pretty evident that people don't like anyone to talk shit about their baby. But frankly, I'm in the business I am in to make people feel like their preconceived opinion is right just because they want it to be.

I love the fiction and they clearly have a talented, passionate staff behind the wheel, but having played a good 10 campaigns this year that offered more entertainment, strategy and playability than Halo 4, I felt the way the impression I came away with was worth expressing, regardless of the anger it may incur.

I think it's important to speak with conviction. I think Halo has room to grow, and I also think if no one actually has the nuts to say it, the team is much less likely to even think it's a need.

Just my two cents.

Exactly this. we share the same opinion.

but your opinion is going to the moon on here. cant say a negative thing about halo.

 

[Jackswastedlife]

Exactly this. we share the same opinion.

but your opinion is going to the moon on here. cant say a negative thing about halo.

Yeah, people see "iron sights" and go batshit. On an up note, I know how to start a riot at a Halo LAN Party.

 

[NBtoaster]

No, I've read the whole thing. It basically boils down to that, though. He feels the core gameplay has gotten stale and repetitive and it needs some freshening up.

And his ideas for freshening up being shallow implementations of other video games, with little regard for how that would work in a Halo title.

The score is still valid if you ignore his suggestions though? If it's stale and repetitive..

 

[RiccochetJ]

Out of curiosity, how do people double zoom with the sniper if they're using that alternate control scheme?

 

[PsihoPerihelion]

The score is still valid if you ignore his suggestions though?

I'm not sure that agreeing with a self declared Sony fanboy that has done nothing but troll on every Halo thread is a great idea given your position after your review.

 

[Wizman23]

I give Jackswastedlife's post a 5 out of 10. Sad that you put more effort into your post on GAF then the review itself. Your Gaf post also doesn't read like a game you just gave an "F" to either.

 

[Majanew]

Yeah, people see "iron sights" and go batshit. On an up note, I know how to start a riot at a Halo LAN Party.

How's that? Saying Halo needs to freshen up like COD does every year? lol

 

[NBtoaster]

I give Jackswastedlife's post a 5 out of 10. Sad that you put more effort into your post on GAF then the review itself. Your Gaf post also doesn't read like a game you just gave an "F" to either.

7 out of 10 is an F?

 

[ViewtifulJC]

The score is still valid if you ignore his suggestions though? If it's stale and repetitive..

"If" being the key word there. All I can really take from that review is that you shoot a lot of enemies again and again for several hours. Which, ya know, hey, welcome to every shooting game ever made, enjoy your stay. I'm not telling he's wrong to find it stale and repetitive, maybe it is, I haven't played the game yet.

His ideas to freshen it up coming from the totally-not-stale-and-repetitive CoD annual installments is the more questionable part. Especially with Iron Sights which are detrimental to the core gameplay Halo is built on.

 

[Stripper13]

I can certainly explain my position, yes.

Let me start by saying that I don't think Halo 4 is a bad game by any stretch of the imagination.

It's think it looks great, I loved the multiplayer, and it's a very polished experience overall.

That being said, the campaign was essentially:

1.) OMGZ!! We're under attack/have to escape/have to stop so and so.
2.) Go blow up that shield generator/push that button/ kill a bunch of dudes!
3.) Now run back through the level and kill even more of the same 8 dudes!

Some of the indoor segments were really solid, but when playing the game in outdoor maps going through the scenarios mentioned above, it gold REALLY old REALLY quick.

If you played Rage, imagine the last level of that game, on repeat, for roughly 8 hours. That is essentially the structure of Halo 4. It forces you to use way too many bullets to kill the same enemies over and over and over again for hours with little variation on how that is accomplished.

I understand some people enjoy arena shooters of that ilk, but frankly, it was a real chore for me.

The funny thing is, the first 15 minutes was another story entirely. The intro was awesome. I honestly felt playing it that if the game kept this up for the entire run, it would have been a primary contender for GOTY and 10 on our scale.

But after that, the game quickly degenerated into the sequences outlined above, and I was left wishing it would get better, or mix it up a bit, or deliver some moments like the early stages of the game. But it didn't really manage to do so in my opinion.

Mind you, they tried to mix it up with some vehicle sequences, most of which were satisfying enough because, well, blowing shit up is fun - but on the whole, there's a lot of back-tracking, a lot of rubber-stamp environment design, and very little going on despite the size of the levels.

They do manage to pack their environment with a ton of objects, and they all look fantastic, but they never did anything spectacular with them in-game outside of the first mission, and that left the game feeling very flat and very repetitive from where I was sitting.

And since folks are so bent out of shape about my comment on iron sights, I'll elaborate a bit here, too.

The thought came to me when I noticed that there is in fact a controller option called "Fishstick" in Halo 4 that gives you the same layout and functionality as most FPS titles on the market by allowing you to swap your zoom function to the left trigger.

However, several of the key guns don't offer sight-focused views, meaning that you use your binoculars and immediately jump out to the standard viewing angle upon firing. It's very jarring, and smacks as a half-assed concession to folks who want that feature in-game.

And yeah, I know Halo fans like what they know, just like most fans of most games. A lot of people argue that a fully-implemented iron sight option would somehow pervert the purity of the game, but frankly, I think they're just afraid of change, and here's why:

At it's core, Halo is about massive, arena-style environments. Ranged combat plays a big role, and when facing key enemies, well-placed shots are critical. As such, aim is pretty fucking important. That being said, a good 50% (and I'm estimating here) of the guns have scope-based aiming components.

This means that the idea of zooming in and shooting isn't foreign to the series, and in fact, is a large part of your tactical arsenal as a player.

With that in mind, and the importance of head shots to combat, it seems like a very logical enhancement to me to offer the OPTION to make use of them. That way, you'd respect legacy folks who like they way their cake is baked, and also allow people who appreciate a higher degree of ease and realism alongside what I and many others feel is a more precise aiming to enjoy the feature.

The funny part is, the developer seems to at least acknowledge that there are some people out there who feel the same way, or the "Fishstick" option wouldn't even exist, so seeing so many call me a CoD fan boy because I believe a "proper" (or more to the point - complete) implementation of this scheme would actually be appreciated and enhance gameplay without impacting the overall design and difficulty of the game -- it just feels like fanboy knee-jerking to me.

And again, I get it. I'd be pissed if, say, Dark Souls suddenly became easy or SOCOM stopped trying to be a tactical shooter and became a Call of Du...err..ok, so that kind of happened with S4 - but anyways, I'm not suggesting that 343i get away from the roots of the series at all.

I'm suggesting that they actually build on them instead of rehashing them over and over again.

To me, Halo is about three core things:

1.) Story - People love the art, characters, and drama of this series, and understandably so. I don't think anything I've mentioned would change that one bit.

2.) Advanced AI Behaviors - The AI in Halo is amazing, and does some really crazy shit. I don't think that needs to stop, either.

3.) MP - The multiplayer in Halo is a well-respected crowd favorite, and it got a lot better with this iteration. I didn't say word one about them adopting anything from other games, though they already made that decision on their own. It didn't "kill" MP at all, and my guess is most will feel this is the best Halo MP experience yet.

Anyways, all that laid out on the table, my point is just that Halo's basic principals are still very true to the ones laid out in Combat Evolved. And sure, that's great for folks who are more in love with other areas of the game, but ultimately, if this were a sports game, we'd be calling Halo 4 a roster update with better graphics, and I think fans deserve more, even if they are afraid of it.

Based on the number of slams I've taken from people who haven't even played the game yet, it's pretty evident that people don't like anyone to talk shit about their baby. But frankly, I'm in the business I am in to make people feel like their preconceived opinion is right just because they want it to be.

I love the fiction and they clearly have a talented, passionate staff behind the wheel, but having played a good 10 campaigns this year that offered more entertainment, strategy and playability than Halo 4, I felt the way the impression I came away with was worth expressing, regardless of the anger it may incur.

I think it's important to speak with conviction. I think Halo has room to grow, and I also think if no one actually has the nuts to say it, the team is much less likely to even think it's a need.

Just my two cents.

Can you name the 10 campaigns this year that you thought were better?

I haven't played Halo 4 - so I won't make any claims as to its quality... but I think your 10 campaigns list would give a whole lot more transparency around this.

FYI - I have no idea who you are, who you work for or what score you gave - but purely based on the text of that post - I think there are a few fairly significant issues with what you think Halo is about.

I won't pick it apart (I'm sure someone else will later) - but your view on 'aiming' seems particularly erroneous. Primarily because Halo gives you near-perfect accuracy (or at least as accurate as the gun will allow) from the beginning. The ONLY reason iron sights exist (apart from some gun-porn element of realism) is to enhance aiming. You could not add it into the Halo sandbox without significantly altering the players ability to strafe/dodge/melee/grenade/jump and start stripping the arena-shooter element away from it all. While some guns let you scope, I'm not sure that means that all guns should have some aim enhancement. The assault rifle works because it's powerful but a bit sloppy. If you give the player the ability to iron-sight and increase accuracy - the balance is shifted immensely. If you give the player the ability to iron-sight with no benefit/penalty - you'd be doing the transferring/newcomer BF/COD player base a massive disservice by allowing them to waste time/effort - while anyone familiar with Halo takes the opportunity to move freely and destroy them via normal aiming. I don't think it's realistic that someone could iron sight and strafe/jump/dodge/grenade in Halo - just as (Halo veterans can call me out if I'm wrong) most/all Halo players cannot perform if scoped.

The scope system on precision weapons works because it allows players to take part in satisfying ranged combat without perverting the Halo combat sandbox.

Edit: The reason I ask for the 10 campaigns is because I would love to see what shooters you've played this year that were less repetitive or had more environment variety than Halo 4.

 

[abadguy]

Whats the point of having ADS in a HALO game when the visor/hud zooms in for you?
Who would want the gun taking up half the screen while, jumping/strafing and shooting at the same time. Not to mention taking time to aim down sights would slow down the combat that much more. Halo isn't like COD, where it takes one or two shots to kill people. You're often in constant movement on maps where alot of times its easy to jump off the side to your death as it is without your weapon further obstructing your view. I see nothing that ADS could possibly add to Halo's gameplay to be honest. People can talk about being "afriad of change" all they want, change for change sake isn't good either.

 

[Miles X]

Exactly this. we share the same opinion.

but your opinion is going to the moon on here. cant say a negative thing about halo.

You're a self confessed Sony fanboy that only comes into Halo threads to talk shit, and this Jack EGM guy has rated it the lowest out of 60+ reviews.

Both of your opinions, are invalid.

Shame this guys site is on meta tbh, if he can't actually review games properly.

 

[HiredN00bs]

And since folks are so bent out of shape about my comment on iron sights, I'll elaborate a bit here, too.

The thought came to me when I noticed that there is in fact a controller option called "Fishstick" in Halo 4 that gives you the same layout and functionality as most FPS titles on the market by allowing you to swap your zoom function to the left trigger.

However, several of the key guns don't offer sight-focused views, meaning that you use your binoculars and immediately jump out to the standard viewing angle upon firing. It's very jarring, and smacks as a half-assed concession to folks who want that feature in-game.

People were "bent out of shape" about your "iron sights" comment because it demonstrated a basic ignorance of the different shooting mechanics in Call of Duty and Halo--an ignorance that someone who reviews video games for a living shouldn't have. But, none of us are perfect, and some of these things may slip by someone who only casually plays the games (and at that point I would blame the editor for the poor decision of assigning such a person to review such a game).

The Aim-Down Sights (ADS) mechanic in Call of Duty isn't unique to the series, but it factors heavily into its gameplay. ADS grants greater precision, at the trade-off of lesser movement speed. It is worth noting that you can get a headshot in Call of Duty with just about any of the guns.

The Zoom mechanic in Halo is almost exclusively a feature of the headshot-capable weapons (although some other weapons may have it...Rockets come to mind, and in Halo 4, some headshot-capable weapons don't have it, such as the Promethean Pistol). This is because the other weapons trade precision for some other quality, like the close-range devastation of the Shotgun or Energy Sword, or the close to mid-range high rate-of-fire domination of the Assault Rifle.

Zooming in Halo does not restrict movement speed. There is an entirely different set of rules, carefully planned out to ensure balance between the various distinct kinds of weaponry. And they are VERY distinct. The weapons in Call of Duty have far less variation, and are built around the ADS mechanic--this is a crucial point. ADS is not an objective evolution in game design, but rather a tool used to craft a certain TYPE of game.

The Fishstick control scheme was built to make the game more accessible to Call of Duty players who are more accustomed to that button layout. I don't play Call of Duty very often, but I did finish the campaigns in Modern Warfare 1 & 2 on Veteran, and I bet I could switch from my Recon configuration to Fishstick without skipping a beat, just as it is when I jump between playing Halo and Call of Duty.

You didn't make some brave step in journalism, nor did you stir some designer at 343 Industries to wake from his traditional Halo slumber. It's not even about our bias towards Halo games. Halo 4 could very well suck, and takes many, MANY cues from CoD that gives the average fan pause, to say the least. What you did was make a huge leap in logic by assuming that because Call of Duty is most popular, it is an objectively better design. Here's hoping you learn from this experience.

 

[Poker Face]

Anyways, all that laid out on the table, my point is just that Halo's basic principals are still very true to the ones laid out in Combat Evolved. And sure, that's great for folks who are more in love with other areas of the game, but ultimately, if this were a sports game, we'd be calling Halo 4 a roster update with better graphics, and I think fans deserve more, even if they are afraid of it

Is this a serious statement?

 

[ViewtifulJC]

HiredN00bs stop being afraid to change, obviously you can just throw Iron Sights in Halo and clearly nothing would be detrimental to the Halo experience. God, such a fanboy.

 

[TheOddOne]

Halo has always prided itself on large open spaces, it has becomes one of its trademark. The idea that there is so much space and freedom to roam is more refreshing then being guided through a corridor, while in theory the large open spaces themselves are corridors; but never feel that they guide they player too much. Levels like Halo 3’s Tsavo Highway, The Ark and The Covenant are much beloved because they go against conventions, the let people roam like it is a real living world where you can go and be whenever you want without the game forcing you to walk a straight line.

The criticism that there is not much to do in the world is very valid, I won’t argue that. However the fact that those spaces are there and left untouched, while they could easily just narrow it down, should stay because it brings a uniqueness that lets it stand out from other games. It brings so much to the game, the world and the story that it would be a shame to streamline it just because there is not much to do in them. They should do more with those spaces, but 343i did the right thing by not cutting it down.

Also, backtracking is fine. Forward push like design is done to death in modern games.

 

[TEH-CJ]

You're a self confessed Sony fanboy that only comes into Halo threads to talk shit, and this Jack EGM guy has rated it the lowest out of 60+ reviews.

Both of your opinions, are invalid.

Shame this guys site is on meta tbh, if he can't actually review games properly.

Oh whatever man. grow up.

I love halo 3 and CE, I can have an opinion like anyone else. Just because I didn't like halo 4 means I'm a sony lover?

if I was praising halo 4 and calling it the best thing next to a warm vagina you would be calling me a champ.

 

[Stripper13]

People were "bent out of shape" about your "iron sights" comment because it demonstrated a basic ignorance of the different shooting mechanics in Call of Duty and Halo--an ignorance that someone who reviews video games for a living shouldn't have. But, none of us are perfect, and some of these things may slip by someone who only casually plays the games (and at that point I would blame the editor for the poor decision of assigning such a person to review such a game).

The Aim-Down Sights (ADS) mechanic in Call of Duty isn't unique to the series, but it factors heavily into its gameplay. ADS grants greater precision, at the trade-off of lesser movement speed. It is worth noting that you can get a headshot in Call of Duty with just about any of the guns.

The Zoom mechanic in Halo is almost exclusively a feature of the headshot-capable weapons (although some other weapons may have it...Rockets come to mind, and in Halo 4, some headshot-capable weapons don't have it, such as the Promethean Pistol). This is because the other weapons trade precision for some other quality, like the close-range devastation of the Shotgun or Energy Sword, or the close to mid-range high rate-of-fire domination of the Assault Rifle.

Zooming in Halo does not restrict movement speed. There is an entirely different set of rules, carefully planned out to ensure balance between the various distinct kinds of weaponry. And they are VERY distinct. The weapons in Call of Duty have far less variation, and are built around the ADS mechanic--this is a crucial point. ADS is not an objective evolution in game design, but rather a tool used to craft a certain TYPE of game.

The Fishstick control scheme was built to make the game more accessible to Call of Duty players who are more accustomed to that button layout. I don't play Call of Duty very often, but I did finish the campaigns in Modern Warfare 1 & 2 on Veteran, and I bet I could switch from my Recon configuration to Fishstick without skipping a beat, just as it is when I jump between playing Halo and Call of Duty.

You didn't make some brave step in journalism, nor did you stir some designer at 343 Industries to wake from his traditional Halo slumber. It's not even about our bias towards Halo games. Halo 4 could very well suck, and takes many, MANY cues from CoD that gives the average fan pause, to say the least. What you did was make a huge leap in logic by assuming that because Call of Duty is most popular, it is an objectively better design. Here's hoping you learn from this experience.

This, more or less.

I believe anyone who thinks iron sights would be some evolution or positive change for Halo has likely missed the WHY Halo is fun in the first place. At this point, with so many ADS military shooters, you can't really blame the reviewer/player for asking why iron sights didn't make it... however it is the equivalent of putting someone who loves Skyrim onto Dark Souls and then having them ask 'why' it doesn't work the same even though it has swords and spells.

 

[Overdoziz]

People were "bent out of shape" about your "iron sights" comment because it demonstrated a basic ignorance of the different shooting mechanics in Call of Duty and Halo--an ignorance that someone who reviews video games for a living shouldn't have. But, none of us are perfect, and some of these things may slip by someone who only casually plays the games (and at that point I would blame the editor for the poor decision of assigning such a person to review such a game).

The Aim-Down Sights (ADS) mechanic in Call of Duty isn't unique to the series, but it factors heavily into its gameplay. ADS grants greater precision, at the trade-off of lesser movement speed. It is worth noting that you can get a headshot in Call of Duty with just about any of the guns.

The Zoom mechanic in Halo is almost exclusively a feature of the headshot-capable weapons (although some other weapons may have it...Rockets come to mind, and in Halo 4, some headshot-capable weapons don't have it, such as the Promethean Pistol). This is because the other weapons trade precision for some other quality, like the close-range devastation of the Shotgun or Energy Sword, or the close to mid-range high rate-of-fire domination of the Assault Rifle.

Zooming in Halo does not restrict movement speed. There is an entirely different set of rules, carefully planned out to ensure balance between the various distinct kinds of weaponry. And they are VERY distinct. The weapons in Call of Duty have far less variation, and are built around the ADS mechanic--this is a crucial point. ADS is not an objective evolution in game design, but rather a tool used to craft a certain TYPE of game.

The Fishstick control scheme was built to make the game more accessible to Call of Duty players who are more accustomed to that button layout. I don't play Call of Duty very often, but I did finish the campaigns in Modern Warfare 1 & 2 on Veteran, and I bet I could switch from my Recon configuration to Fishstick without skipping a beat, just as it is when I jump between playing Halo and Call of Duty.

You didn't make some brave step in journalism, nor did you stir some designer at 343 Industries to wake from his traditional Halo slumber. It's not even about our bias towards Halo games. Halo 4 could very well suck, and takes many, MANY cues from CoD that gives the average fan pause, to say the least. What you did was make a huge leap in logic by assuming that because Call of Duty is most popular, it is an objectively better design. Here's hoping you learn from this experience.

 

[Seance]

Cortana will be so annoying:

"HOSTILES!"
"CHIEF! ENEMY SPOTTED!"
"FUCK UP THEIR SHIT!"

 

[Trickster]

Oh whatever man. grow up.

I love halo 3 and CE, I can have an opinion like anyone else. Just because I didn't like halo 4 means I'm a sony lover?

if I was praising halo 4 and calling it the best thing next to a warm vagina you would be calling me a champ.

I never understood why people want to stick around in topics about games they don't like. Seems like a waste of that persons time if they're not actually there to stir up shit for teh lulz.

 

[GloveSlap]

If people used optional iron sights they would get murdered.

 

[StuBurns]

I was hoping to throw up some defense for this EGM review, I saw some vicious posts, and presumed it was the typical launch window blindness to faults, but god damn, his retort posts are embarrassing.

 

[BigTnaples]

HiredN00bs. Hell yes.

 

[Stripper13]

Oh whatever man. grow up.

I love halo 3 and CE, I can have an opinion like anyone else. Just because I didn't like halo 4 means I'm a sony lover?

if I was praising halo 4 and calling it the best thing next to a warm vagina you would be calling me a champ.

You're a joke account right?

Anyone who has their doubts, check the post history.

For the record, I would still laugh at your posts flip-flopping between Xbox fanatic and Sony fan boy, even if you loved Halo 4.

 

[Miles X]

Oh whatever man. grow up.

I love halo 3 and CE, I can have an opinion like anyone else. Just because I didn't like halo 4 means I'm a sony lover?

if I was praising halo 4 and calling it the best thing next to a warm vagina you would be calling me a champ.

Dude you said you're a Sony fanboy yourself, stop calling people out for what you called yourself, which begs the question, if you don't like Halo 4 why are you still posting in Halo 4 threads? I don't think anyone values your opinion ...

 

[TEH-CJ]

You're a joke account right?

Anyone who has their doubts, check the post history.

For the record, I would still laugh at your posts flip-flopping between Xbox fanatic and Sony fan boy, even if you loved Halo 4.

and your a joke.

whats this about flip flopping? what happened to liking both consoles?? is that not allowed?

I like some games on xbox and some games on ps3. and I dislike games on both consoles. its not hard to understand. and I'm pretty vocal about it.

check my post history. go for it lol. what are you going to find? me liking games on both consoles...

 

[feel]

People were "bent out of shape" about your "iron sights" comment because it demonstrated a basic ignorance of the different shooting mechanics in Call of Duty and Halo--an ignorance that someone who reviews video games for a living shouldn't have. But, none of us are perfect, and some of these things may slip by someone who only casually plays the games (and at that point I would blame the editor for the poor decision of assigning such a person to review such a game).

The Aim-Down Sights (ADS) mechanic in Call of Duty isn't unique to the series, but it factors heavily into its gameplay. ADS grants greater precision, at the trade-off of lesser movement speed. It is worth noting that you can get a headshot in Call of Duty with just about any of the guns.

The Zoom mechanic in Halo is almost exclusively a feature of the headshot-capable weapons (although some other weapons may have it...Rockets come to mind, and in Halo 4, some headshot-capable weapons don't have it, such as the Promethean Pistol). This is because the other weapons trade precision for some other quality, like the close-range devastation of the Shotgun or Energy Sword, or the close to mid-range high rate-of-fire domination of the Assault Rifle.

Zooming in Halo does not restrict movement speed. There is an entirely different set of rules, carefully planned out to ensure balance between the various distinct kinds of weaponry. And they are VERY distinct. The weapons in Call of Duty have far less variation, and are built around the ADS mechanic--this is a crucial point. ADS is not an objective evolution in game design, but rather a tool used to craft a certain TYPE of game.

The Fishstick control scheme was built to make the game more accessible to Call of Duty players who are more accustomed to that button layout. I don't play Call of Duty very often, but I did finish the campaigns in Modern Warfare 1 & 2 on Veteran, and I bet I could switch from my Recon configuration to Fishstick without skipping a beat, just as it is when I jump between playing Halo and Call of Duty.

You didn't make some brave step in journalism, nor did you stir some designer at 343 Industries to wake from his traditional Halo slumber. It's not even about our bias towards Halo games. Halo 4 could very well suck, and takes many, MANY cues from CoD that gives the average fan pause, to say the least. What you did was make a huge leap in logic by assuming that because Call of Duty is most popular, it is an objectively better design. Here's hoping you learn from this experience.

Beautiful.

 

[Xamdou]

Cortana will be so annoying:

"HOSTILES!"
"CHIEF! ENEMY SPOTTED!"
"FUCK UP THEIR SHIT!"

I welcome all of Cortana's in-game battle dialogue!

 

[Sai-kun]

People were "bent out of shape" about your "iron sights" comment because it demonstrated a basic ignorance of the different shooting mechanics in Call of Duty and Halo--an ignorance that someone who reviews video games for a living shouldn't have. But, none of us are perfect, and some of these things may slip by someone who only casually plays the games (and at that point I would blame the editor for the poor decision of assigning such a person to review such a game).

The Aim-Down Sights (ADS) mechanic in Call of Duty isn't unique to the series, but it factors heavily into its gameplay. ADS grants greater precision, at the trade-off of lesser movement speed. It is worth noting that you can get a headshot in Call of Duty with just about any of the guns.

The Zoom mechanic in Halo is almost exclusively a feature of the headshot-capable weapons (although some other weapons may have it...Rockets come to mind, and in Halo 4, some headshot-capable weapons don't have it, such as the Promethean Pistol). This is because the other weapons trade precision for some other quality, like the close-range devastation of the Shotgun or Energy Sword, or the close to mid-range high rate-of-fire domination of the Assault Rifle.

Zooming in Halo does not restrict movement speed. There is an entirely different set of rules, carefully planned out to ensure balance between the various distinct kinds of weaponry. And they are VERY distinct. The weapons in Call of Duty have far less variation, and are built around the ADS mechanic--this is a crucial point. ADS is not an objective evolution in game design, but rather a tool used to craft a certain TYPE of game.

The Fishstick control scheme was built to make the game more accessible to Call of Duty players who are more accustomed to that button layout. I don't play Call of Duty very often, but I did finish the campaigns in Modern Warfare 1 & 2 on Veteran, and I bet I could switch from my Recon configuration to Fishstick without skipping a beat, just as it is when I jump between playing Halo and Call of Duty.

You didn't make some brave step in journalism, nor did you stir some designer at 343 Industries to wake from his traditional Halo slumber. It's not even about our bias towards Halo games. Halo 4 could very well suck, and takes many, MANY cues from CoD that gives the average fan pause, to say the least. What you did was make a huge leap in logic by assuming that because Call of Duty is most popular, it is an objectively better design. Here's hoping you learn from this experience.

 

[Kujo]

The Aim-Down Sights (ADS) mechanic in Call of Duty isn't unique to the series, but it factors heavily into its gameplay. ADS grants greater precision, at the trade-off of lesser movement speed.

Stalker perk in MW3 pretty much fixed this, you can strafe and jump while using ADS at a good speed. I'd even say using the MK14 in that game with Stalker while ADS feels just like using a DMR (without bloom) while zoomed in.

The big difference between the two games though is that CoD has much faster kill times so ADS doesn't slow it down much. What I'd rather they copy from CoD is 60fps

 

[GlamFM]

First really early impressions:

-Looks fantastic.

-Intro cutscene is awesome.

-Once it starts it´s just more HALO.

-Expected a bigger departure from the old formula.

-Little disappointed at this point.

Don´t read too much into it. Will put some more hours in tomorrow.

 

[Fracas]

HiredN00bs laying down some truth bombs in here.

 

[Snowden's Secret]

Everything about Halo 4 rubs me the wrong way, but I want to join the chorus of voices that is decrying the call for ADS in Halo.

NOT ALL CONTROL SCHEMES WORK FOR EVERY GAME

HOMOGENIZATION OF CONTROLS LEADS TO HOMOGENIZATION OF GAMEPLAY

IT'S YOUR JOB TO LEARN TO PLAY A GAME

KID ICARUS DID NOT NEED DUAL STICKS

/rant

 

[Einbroch]

I never understood why people want to stick around in topics about games they don't like. Seems like a waste of that persons time if they're not actually there to stir up shit for teh lulz.

You would rather have a thread full of people that only praise a game?

As long as the person isn't trolling and making valid points I see no issue. Debate is healthy.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

The next mario game better have fucking ADS. How else will we be able to throw fireballs.

Edit: Serious question, does Mario still throw fireballs?

 

[Red]

Stalker perk in MW3 pretty much fixed this, you can strafe and jump while using ADS at a good speed. I'd even say using the MK14 in that game with Stalker while ADS feels just like using a DMR (without bloom) while zoomed in.

The big difference between the two games though is that CoD has much faster kill times so ADS doesn't slow it down much. What I'd rather they copy from CoD is 60fps

I would love 60 fps, wow. Still waiting on H3 PC for exactly that

Not sure I would've taken it at the expense of H4's visuals though.

 

[Oxigen_Waste]

Gotta confess I'm very surprised to see Halo 4 getting such a positive response. Guess I'll have to get my hands on it then, at some point.

 

[GloveSlap]

I have been watching the Halo 4 streams for the last day and the multiplayer looks awesome. The guns are accurate, the kill times are fast, the movement is good, and the armor abilities don't seem as annoying as in Reach. It will be nice to have a clutch Halo again.

 

[Trickster]

You would rather have a thread full of people that only praise a game?

As long as the person isn't trolling and making valid points I see no issue. Debate is healthy.

How did you getfrom my post that people should only praise games in topics about them. I'm saying that if you do not like a game, which he said himself, why keep posting in threads about it?

 

[PsihoPerihelion]

Oh whatever man. grow up.

I love halo 3 and CE, I can have an opinion like anyone else. Just because I didn't like halo 4 means I'm a sony lover?

if I was praising halo 4 and calling it the best thing next to a warm vagina you would be calling me a champ.

It's not because you hated Halo 4, its because...

PS3 - Killzone 2
PS3 - Uncharted
PS3 - Resistance
PS3 - MGS4
PS3 - Ratchet

Guys, guys! Why don't we list our top 5 systems and their DEFINITIVE game! And all you can name is PS3, PS3, PS3.

Or maybe, is because...

Man I Love my ps3.

Too bad I'm poor and had to sell most of my games i miss them dearly...

Yeah, I know. This doesn't mean anything! We all have consoles we love. So no, maybe is not this, but...

It is. don't let screens fool you, the game is very inconsistent with its graphics. pretty dissapointing. and this is coming from a GT fan and ps3 fanboy. I say it how it is though, I have no bias.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=24549376&postcount=8133

Maybe is that quote above? It could be anything, my friend.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

this is coming from a ps3 fanboy...I have no bias.

Hmm...

 

[JdFoX187]

Wow, after reading the last few pages of this thread -- really? I always hate when writers get into arguments with other people trying to justify their pieces. You write it, you publish it and you move on. Let the people say what they want about it. There's no need to jump in and start defending it. You look EXTREMELY desperate, and quite sad.

That being said, I agree with everything HiredN00bs said.

 

[enzo_gt]

People were "bent out of shape" about your "iron sights" comment because it demonstrated a basic ignorance of the different shooting mechanics in Call of Duty and Halo--an ignorance that someone who reviews video games for a living shouldn't have. But, none of us are perfect, and some of these things may slip by someone who only casually plays the games (and at that point I would blame the editor for the poor decision of assigning such a person to review such a game).

The Aim-Down Sights (ADS) mechanic in Call of Duty isn't unique to the series, but it factors heavily into its gameplay. ADS grants greater precision, at the trade-off of lesser movement speed. It is worth noting that you can get a headshot in Call of Duty with just about any of the guns.

The Zoom mechanic in Halo is almost exclusively a feature of the headshot-capable weapons (although some other weapons may have it...Rockets come to mind, and in Halo 4, some headshot-capable weapons don't have it, such as the Promethean Pistol). This is because the other weapons trade precision for some other quality, like the close-range devastation of the Shotgun or Energy Sword, or the close to mid-range high rate-of-fire domination of the Assault Rifle.

Zooming in Halo does not restrict movement speed. There is an entirely different set of rules, carefully planned out to ensure balance between the various distinct kinds of weaponry. And they are VERY distinct. The weapons in Call of Duty have far less variation, and are built around the ADS mechanic--this is a crucial point. ADS is not an objective evolution in game design, but rather a tool used to craft a certain TYPE of game.

The Fishstick control scheme was built to make the game more accessible to Call of Duty players who are more accustomed to that button layout. I don't play Call of Duty very often, but I did finish the campaigns in Modern Warfare 1 & 2 on Veteran, and I bet I could switch from my Recon configuration to Fishstick without skipping a beat, just as it is when I jump between playing Halo and Call of Duty.

You didn't make some brave step in journalism, nor did you stir some designer at 343 Industries to wake from his traditional Halo slumber. It's not even about our bias towards Halo games. Halo 4 could very well suck, and takes many, MANY cues from CoD that gives the average fan pause, to say the least. What you did was make a huge leap in logic by assuming that because Call of Duty is most popular, it is an objectively better design. Here's hoping you learn from this experience.

Fantastic post.

I read the massive post by the dude and nowhere in there did he correlate the need for ADS with any coherent argument WHY it is necessary for change or the change is even needed. It was just sort of presumed and hence those leaps of logic.

 

[SomeOneInaHat]

People were "bent out of shape" about your "iron sights" comment because it demonstrated a basic ignorance of the different shooting mechanics in Call of Duty and Halo--an ignorance that someone who reviews video games for a living shouldn't have. But, none of us are perfect, and some of these things may slip by someone who only casually plays the games (and at that point I would blame the editor for the poor decision of assigning such a person to review such a game).

The Aim-Down Sights (ADS) mechanic in Call of Duty isn't unique to the series, but it factors heavily into its gameplay. ADS grants greater precision, at the trade-off of lesser movement speed. It is worth noting that you can get a headshot in Call of Duty with just about any of the guns.

The Zoom mechanic in Halo is almost exclusively a feature of the headshot-capable weapons (although some other weapons may have it...Rockets come to mind, and in Halo 4, some headshot-capable weapons don't have it, such as the Promethean Pistol). This is because the other weapons trade precision for some other quality, like the close-range devastation of the Shotgun or Energy Sword, or the close to mid-range high rate-of-fire domination of the Assault Rifle.

Zooming in Halo does not restrict movement speed. There is an entirely different set of rules, carefully planned out to ensure balance between the various distinct kinds of weaponry. And they are VERY distinct. The weapons in Call of Duty have far less variation, and are built around the ADS mechanic--this is a crucial point. ADS is not an objective evolution in game design, but rather a tool used to craft a certain TYPE of game.

The Fishstick control scheme was built to make the game more accessible to Call of Duty players who are more accustomed to that button layout. I don't play Call of Duty very often, but I did finish the campaigns in Modern Warfare 1 & 2 on Veteran, and I bet I could switch from my Recon configuration to Fishstick without skipping a beat, just as it is when I jump between playing Halo and Call of Duty.

You didn't make some brave step in journalism, nor did you stir some designer at 343 Industries to wake from his traditional Halo slumber. It's not even about our bias towards Halo games. Halo 4 could very well suck, and takes many, MANY cues from CoD that gives the average fan pause, to say the least. What you did was make a huge leap in logic by assuming that because Call of Duty is most popular, it is an objectively better design. Here's hoping you learn from this experience.

 

[Hulud]

Yep, that's a solid post.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

People were "bent out of shape" about your "iron sights" comment because it demonstrated a basic ignorance of the different shooting mechanics in Call of Duty and Halo--an ignorance that someone who reviews video games for a living shouldn't have. But, none of us are perfect, and some of these things may slip by someone who only casually plays the games (and at that point I would blame the editor for the poor decision of assigning such a person to review such a game).

The Aim-Down Sights (ADS) mechanic in Call of Duty isn't unique to the series, but it factors heavily into its gameplay. ADS grants greater precision, at the trade-off of lesser movement speed. It is worth noting that you can get a headshot in Call of Duty with just about any of the guns.

The Zoom mechanic in Halo is almost exclusively a feature of the headshot-capable weapons (although some other weapons may have it...Rockets come to mind, and in Halo 4, some headshot-capable weapons don't have it, such as the Promethean Pistol). This is because the other weapons trade precision for some other quality, like the close-range devastation of the Shotgun or Energy Sword, or the close to mid-range high rate-of-fire domination of the Assault Rifle.

Zooming in Halo does not restrict movement speed. There is an entirely different set of rules, carefully planned out to ensure balance between the various distinct kinds of weaponry. And they are VERY distinct. The weapons in Call of Duty have far less variation, and are built around the ADS mechanic--this is a crucial point. ADS is not an objective evolution in game design, but rather a tool used to craft a certain TYPE of game.

The Fishstick control scheme was built to make the game more accessible to Call of Duty players who are more accustomed to that button layout. I don't play Call of Duty very often, but I did finish the campaigns in Modern Warfare 1 & 2 on Veteran, and I bet I could switch from my Recon configuration to Fishstick without skipping a beat, just as it is when I jump between playing Halo and Call of Duty.

You didn't make some brave step in journalism, nor did you stir some designer at 343 Industries to wake from his traditional Halo slumber. It's not even about our bias towards Halo games. Halo 4 could very well suck, and takes many, MANY cues from CoD that gives the average fan pause, to say the least. What you did was make a huge leap in logic by assuming that because Call of Duty is most popular, it is an objectively better design. Here's hoping you learn from this experience.