Support NeoGAF

[eastx]

For once I actually agree with a "writer" at polygon. The Halo 5 story has about as much authority to call itself canon as any deviant art fan fiction writer.

That's what I said about Star Trek VI and the Next Generation movies, every modern James Bond movie, modern Doctor Who, Batman comics, and lots of other stuff that continues to be produced despite the departure of the creator. No wait, I didn't say that.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

Mega UGH having to depend from the bullshit Halo expanded universe to understand the story of the game. Fuck that shit.

Also fuck that shit for removing splitscreen everything.

Other than that I'm cautiously optimistic.....

 

[Hockeymac18]

This is why I like Rotten Tomatoes. Its just positive reviews vs negative reviews. If we were using the Tomatometer it would be at 93% which is great. On the other hand, we whine about sites not using the full scale and I think this is why. People acting like 85 is a bad thing, we should reach a point where 85 is celebrated because that's a great game on most scales. Yet we wont tolerate anything less than 90? Why even have 1-100 if its really only 1-2 (1 being above/equal 90 and 2 being below)

A few things contribute, I think.

• The way grades are handed out in school is a big factor for a lot of people - their expectations are "Great" = above 90 (or 93 in some grading systems). That's a bit hard to nail down since different countries use a different scale - but I think there is a subconscious thing that goes on in a lot of people's heads, especially in the US, that relates this school system way of scoring to a game's score (something like "I wouldn't be satisfied with a 75 on a school test, so why would I settle for that in a game?").
  
• Overinflation of game scores was common I think for a while, and I think there is an adjustment that's occurring in the gaming media where they're taking a lot of the feedback from last generation into account (e.g. the Mass Effect IGN gif where dollars increase the score) - perhaps they've swung the other way and are a bit "too" harsh now (or just as harsh as they should be).
  The issue there, though, is consumers want to compare to past generations, and there is no good "normalization' method to account for those differences.
  
• There are now more gaming publications, and many might be "bucking the trend" and either using different metrics for scoring (e.g. One publication's "5" might be equivalent to someone else's "7") - it could also be that you now find more sites wanting to stick out a bit with a "controversial" score (although, I suspect this is a very small part of it - I doubt there are very many journalists would compromise their integrity like that)

The last two factors will probably make it very difficult for there to be games scoring ridiculous "MC scores" (whatever that means) anytime soon (things like 95 and above).


I agree with you that another system, similar to what's used in other entertainment industries, would be better. "Like/didn't like" or "buy/rent/skip" is much better, in my opinion. But we have this culture in the gaming industry now, so it's probably impossible to break away from now.

And if you just can't get away from scores, maybe some sort of comparison metric could be added? As in, this game has scored higher than X% of other games to come out this year/generation (which could account for any drift in "harshness" that has occurred in scoring over time).

That said, I've enjoyed a ton of games that were scored 85 (or even below) on aggregation sites, so I'm looking forward to checking Halo 5 out (despite some of the issues that people have brought up). I'm particularly excited about the MP, which sounds like it might be one of the best Halos in that regard.

 

[VincentMatts]

Personally, story or campaign length aside, the fact that I can't go over to my friend's house and play splitscreen co-op with him on Halo 5 is a big negative. I know this is a tiny issue for many people, but local co-op always defined my Halo experience.

Or you can just get Live and enjoy the game.

 

[infinit777]

When people that have played all of the mainline Halo games multiple times are still confused about things in the game, only 343i is to blame. They leaned very heavily on Extended Universe stuff and did a very poor job of explaining it.

You know the saying, don't hate the player...

I followed H4 very easily... i haven't read any EU stuff past 'first strike' (the third halo book) and at the time had only watched 'Forward unto dawn' which really didn't seem to have anything relevant. all the information needed was in the game.

/end rant

 

[King Gilga]

Wow, an 85 meta for a mainline halo game, gotta be disappointing.

 

[Trup1aya]

Who would have thought Gaf would be so interested in how long it takes veteran halo players to blow through a campaign on a difficulty devoid of any challenge...

Never change Gaf. Never change.

 

[Kagutaba]

Oh man, it's down to 85:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/halo-5-guardians

This thread's going to implode.

Why are people acting like there's some kind of amazing meltdown going down in this thread? Or hoping that one is about to happen?

Apart from like three insincere joke posts, no one in this thread is particular upset over these reviews.

 

[Shenmue]

lol, it wont. Naughty Dog is a mature studio, working on a franchise they created, on a more powerful platform. I hate to even drae comparisons here because its truely apples to oranges but they have all the odds in their favor. They'll knock it outta the park again.

I think it can definitely happen. They've made a major change in going from Amy Hennig to Neil Druckmann. UC relies so heavily on its story that I can definitely see this one getting a lower score if Druckmann mucks it up.

 

[G_Berry]

A preview: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32102086&postcount=3251

Thisisneogaf.gif

 

[VincentMatts]

Wow, an 85 meta for a mainline halo game, gotta be disappointing.

Ok, i think i just have to stay out of review threads from now on. Yep.

 

[raindoc]

I'm praying that everyone and their grandparents (especially their grandparents) are busy playing H5 tomorrow (and the day after, I hear MP is where it's at) so I'll have a quiet day in the ER. 6hrs of playtime would allow me to blast through the campaign between shifts, get some sleep and dive right into the lore and spoilers threads asap.
If the gameplay is fun enough, I wouldn't mind the 6 hours "short" campaign, since I'll replay the hell out of it.
What has me slightly worried, is that people who care about the lore seem to be disappointed most...
And then there's Locke and the Locke:Chief gameplay ratio. I really, really, really like the Chief. He's no character that'd win someone a Nobel price in literature, or even a Nebula award. Playing him in a movie adaption won't bring home an Oscar - but to hell with that. It's the Chief!
I've been saving the world with him for 10 years and more and I'd like to keep it that way. I enjoyed ODST a lot, it's one of my favourite Halo campaigns, but that's not because I didn't play as the Chief. I don't like the thought of having Locke forced onto me and I hope this recent development isn't a sign that 343i are preparing to replace Sierra 117.
Because the Chief shares a place in my heart with Han Solo and Indiana Jones.
He is bigger than Jesus, not only physically - that dude only died once.

 

[Viper3]

The game is meant to be played on Heroic and I doubt we will see people putting up 4hr heroic runs.

Oh great, here we go with the heroic bullshit again.

Can anyone explain to me why the game is meant to be played on heroic? Or is that just a meme that the most hardcore Halo fans have invented for some reason? Given how even Frank O'Connor said that you should play the game on normal on your first playthrough (or maybe he said that about Halo 4, I dunno).

So the wast majority of games are meant to be played on normal, at least on your first playthrough, but no, Halo has to be played on either Heroic or Legendary, otherwise you're a pussy not worthy of playing the game. GTFO with this shit.

 

[weevles]

The only Halo game where I can remember most of the story was Reach.

Anyway, I'm still looking forward to the game...

 

[Alex_Mexico]

I remember when Cortana just causally says "that Didact..." in Halo 4 like I was supposed to have any idea wtf a Didact was from the previous Halo games lol.

You and me both, brah. The story shouldn't rely so much on the expanded universe. They should be more like Star Wars that also has expanded universe but the movies tell their own independent story. I hate this about Halo. The story has gotten worse and more difficult to comprehend as the games go by. By the time ODST, Reach, Wars and shit started happening I gave up.

 

[Bits N Pieces]

Actually i do remember someone saying it was twice as long. But i might be remembering wrong.

Ive only ever heard them saying it was 'twice as big'*


*which is open to interpretation

 

[VinFTW]

Wow, an 85 meta for a mainline halo game, gotta be disappointing.

Ohyou.jpg

 

[zsynqx]

I think it can definitely happen. They've made a major change in going from Amy Hennig to Neil Druckmann. UC relies so heavily on its story that I can definitely see this one getting a lower score if Druckmann mucks it up.

I could see that, but at the end of the day Drckmann/Straley just came of TLOU which to many people, including me, was far superior to the Uncharted games narratively speaking.

edit: sorry for going off topic.

 

[Einchy]

Oh great, here we go with the heroic bullshit again.

Can anyone explain to me why the game is meant to be played on heroic? Or is that just a meme that the most hardcore Halo fans have invented for some reason? Given how even Frank O'Connor said that you should play the game on normal on your first playthrough (or maybe he said that about Halo 4, I dunno).

So the wast majority of games are meant to be played on normal, at least on your first playthrough, but no, Halo has to be played on either Heroic or Legendary, otherwise you're a pussy not worthy of playing the game. GTFO with this shit.

Because Bungie has said so themselves? It's not something the community made up, it's the difficulty that the developers balance the game around.

If you're decent as games in general then there's zero reason why you'd play it on normal, it would be on "easy" mode for you.

 

[VincentMatts]

Oh great, here we go with the heroic bullshit again.

Can anyone explain to me why the game is meant to be played on heroic? Or is that just a meme that the most hardcore Halo fans have invented for some reason? Given how even Frank O'Connor said that you should play the game on normal on your first playthrough (or maybe he said that about Halo 4, I dunno).

So the wast majority of games are meant to be played on normal, at least on your first playthrough, but no, Halo has to be played on either Heroic or Legendary, otherwise you're a pussy not worthy of playing the game. GTFO with this shit.

Last thing im gonna post in this thread. Difficulties are subjective. Just like playing Forza6 with all the assist on. Driving purists wouldn't do that, but the option is there for those who just wanna have fun.

Halo has always been more fun (to me) on heroic. And the game is designed with that difficulty in mind. Below that is way too easy for me and could very well end up me beating the game in record time. So yeah, someone who plays a lot of FPS shooters and plays it on normal will probably breeze through it.

 

[Sai-kun]

Oh great, here we go with the heroic bullshit again.

Can anyone explain to me why the game is meant to be played on heroic? Or is that just a meme that the most hardcore Halo fans have invented for some reason? Given how even Frank O'Connor said that you should play the game on normal on your first playthrough (or maybe he said that about Halo 4, I dunno).

So the wast majority of games are meant to be played on normal, at least on your first playthrough, but no, Halo has to be played on either Heroic or Legendary, otherwise you're a pussy not worthy of playing the game. GTFO with this shit.

yikes

you might be projecting some of your own insecurities here, watch out

As for why you should play on Heroic, i think that's just a thing they've encouraged for fans of the series since Halo 3. It's apparently just the 'right' difficulty for people who have experience with previous campaigns and multiplayer, and generally have a better grasp of the mechanics than people who have never played an entry in the series might have.

 

[Madness]

Problem is, again, the latest critic review by Slant Magazine gave the game 3.5 stars out of 5 and Metacritic makes it 70 out of 100 on their point scale. This will skew the numbers down.

Just like two thumbs up will equal a 100 perfect rating. This is the problem with trying to give credence to aggregation. Oh well, I think 343 will be happy with the majority of overwhelming positive reviews and what should be good sales.

 

[Shenmue]

I could see that, but at the end of the day Drckmann/Straley just came of TLOU which to many people, including me, was far superior to the Uncharted games narratively speaking.

edit: sorry for going off topic.

I dunno the two games are so different in tone I can't compare them and say which was superior narratively.

Someone can do something serious and dark like TLOU but suck at doing something in the vein of a lighthearted Indiana Jones type adventure story.

But yeah this isn't the place for this so this will be my last post on it.

 

[SplitYourInfinities]

A 86 is not a bad metascore by current standards. I mean, the volume of games with a 90+ is very low compared to last gen and the games that are above it it's because they improve their predecessors in a great way (Witcher 3, Metal Gear Solid V). Even the score of first party games is not inflated anymore, the only one who still holds up is Bloodborne. Also, i'm pretty sure that the final score will go up to 87-88 when the reviews holding for the multiplayer go live since it's the best part of the game according to impressions.

 

[Montresor]

You and me both, brah. The story shouldn't rely so much on the expanded universe. They should be more like Star Wars that also has expanded universe but the movies tell their own independent story. I hate this about Halo. The story has gotten worse and more difficult to comprehend as the games go by. By the time ODST, Reach, Wars and shit started happening I gave up.

I've played only Halo 1, 2, 3, and the beginning of ODST.

From my exposure to cutscenes and terminals (I have never read anything on Wikipedia or read books or watches Halo movies or shows):

-I am guessing that the Didact comes from a race of people called "Prometheans". The Didact may or may not be a "Forerunner". Either way the Didact had some hand in the planning, engineering, and creation of the original Halo array. The Didact is a male with terrible temper, quick to anger. He has a foil companion, a female called The Librarian. Don't know much about her from Halo 1, 2, 3, and ODST, but there was a suggestion that having The Librarian around would be great because she is level-headed and would know how to solve any problem related to the Flood. However, wherever the Librarian goes, the Didact follows - so be careful what you wish for: if you want The Librarian you have to deal with the Didact too.

So I gleaned all this from even before playing Halo 4, without ever touching Wikipedia, a book, a show, or a movie. Sure I may be wrong with some of my guesses but I have a baseline to start with. I find it mystifying that someone can start Halo 4 without ever hearing the word Didact beforehand and thus having no clue/context about him. When people say "I'm very annoyed that you have to know about the expanded Halo universe to understand Halo 4 or Halo 5" please god, don't tell me these people are including the Terminals in this discussion, are they? The Terminals are a wonderful, incredible reward in Halo from my limited experience. They provide so much great backstory and they are available in-game (at least in MCC...). I don't think I would ever begrudge Retro Studios for including deep lore in their scan logs like they did back in the Gamecube era.

 

[TemplaerDude]

Sounds like I'll be holding off until a cheap copy rolls around, I don't do multiplayer and the campaign sounds passable but not worth the high price of entry alone.

 

[G_Berry]

I dunno the two games are so different in tone I can't compare them and say which was superior narratively.

Someone can do something serious and dark like TLOU but suck at doing something in the vein of a lighthearted Indiana Jones type adventure story.

Please stay on topic. This is a halo review thread ffs.

 

[TheOddOne]

Oh great, here we go with the heroic bullshit again.

Can anyone explain to me why the game is meant to be played on heroic? Or is that just a meme that the most hardcore Halo fans have invented for some reason? Given how even Frank O'Connor said that you should play the game on normal on your first playthrough (or maybe he said that about Halo 4, I dunno).

So the wast majority of games are meant to be played on normal, at least on your first playthrough, but no, Halo has to be played on either Heroic or Legendary, otherwise you're a pussy not worthy of playing the game. GTFO with this shit.

IRCC one of the designers at Bungie discussed the difficulty during a talk. Normal was for those who don’t play a lot of FPS’s, but could handle themselves it stressful moments. Heroic was balanced more for veteran players that knew about the gameplay loop. Legendary was there for the challenge.

 

[Cripshay]

Personally, story or campaign length aside, the fact that I can't go over to my friend's house and play splitscreen co-op with him on Halo 5 is a big negative. I know this is a tiny issue for many people, but local co-op always defined my Halo experience.

It's not a tiny issue. It's the main reason why my friends aren't buying it.

 

[PerezDeCorcho]

Oh great, here we go with the heroic bullshit again.

Can anyone explain to me why the game is meant to be played on heroic? Or is that just a meme that the most hardcore Halo fans have invented for some reason? Given how even Frank O'Connor said that you should play the game on normal on your first playthrough (or maybe he said that about Halo 4, I dunno).

So the wast majority of games are meant to be played on normal, at least on your first playthrough, but no, Halo has to be played on either Heroic or Legendary, otherwise you're a pussy not worthy of playing the game. GTFO with this shit.

"Fight against formidable foes that will truly test your skill and wits; this is the way Halo is meant to be played.”

This is the Bungie-designated description for Heroic difficulty in Halo 3, ODST, and Reach.

 

[Trup1aya]

Oh great, here we go with the heroic bullshit again.

Can anyone explain to me why the game is meant to be played on heroic? Or is that just a meme that the most hardcore Halo fans have invented for some reason? Given how even Frank O'Connor said that you should play the game on normal on your first playthrough (or maybe he said that about Halo 4, I dunno).

So the wast majority of games are meant to be played on normal, at least on your first playthrough, but no, Halo has to be played on either Heroic or Legendary, otherwise you're a pussy not worthy of playing the game. GTFO with this shit.

Because it actually says in the descriptor that heroic is how halo is meant to be played.

“Fight against formidable foes that will truly test your skill and wits; this is the way Halo is meant to be played"

It was always Bungie's sweet spot as far as tuning the AI. when people praise Halo's AI, they are talking about Heroic. It's kind of stuck with the franchise.

The only reason Normal is called Normal is because it allowed people to get familiar with dual analogue back in Halo CE... It's probably time to rethink the naming conventions, but this isn't some bullshit meme.

 

[Samurai G0SU]

Hey guys just got back from clas...

HAHAHAAH!! LOVE THISSSS

 

[Crzy1]

Cool. Reviews seem pretty solid with the exception of a few. Was hoping this might be a revival for the series, but at least it seems to be a solid addition.

 

[hawk2025]

Who would have thought Gaf would be so interested in how long it takes veteran halo players to blow through a campaign on a difficulty devoid of any challenge...

Never change Gaf. Never change.

Oh, fucking please.

It's a relevant statistic, like any other. And when given a range that was supposedly based on real-world playtest data, people don't expect values significantly below the minimum of said range. It's basic common sense.

 

[BokehKing]

You and me both, brah. The story shouldn't rely so much on the expanded universe. They should be more like Star Wars that also has expanded universe but the movies tell their own independent story. I hate this about Halo. The story has gotten worse and more difficult to comprehend as the games go by. By the time ODST, Reach, Wars and shit started happening I gave up.

But just buy the books and read them all?
Aren't you a true halo fan? Come on

Things like 'fall of reach' should be free considering these 343 games rely more and more on things like the EU...i shouldn't have to read comics and novels between console entries

I know I was completely lost in 4, I used a free audible token on fall of reach so I can l figure out why I should care about blue team. (So good the first few hours but hit a low point with no chief, picking back up though)

I'm hoping tomorrow when I play 5 I'm not as lost, if I am ill kick single player to the curb and just play Warzone until November games come out (then come back for forge/BTB)

 

[gamechanger87]

Oh great, here we go with the heroic bullshit again.

Can anyone explain to me why the game is meant to be played on heroic? Or is that just a meme that the most hardcore Halo fans have invented for some reason? Given how even Frank O'Connor said that you should play the game on normal on your first playthrough (or maybe he said that about Halo 4, I dunno).

So the wast majority of games are meant to be played on normal, at least on your first playthrough, but no, Halo has to be played on either Heroic or Legendary, otherwise you're a pussy not worthy of playing the game. GTFO with this shit.

As has been explained by nearly every poster after this garbage you threw at a wall, Bungie/343 have said that Heroic is the way the game should be played if you have played Halo before and understand the combat. Normal has never been anything other than a mode for those not used to playing FPS.

This isn't just some thing we are all making up. Go play any Halo on easy and see how long it takes you. Cut out the waiting missions and you will be really surprised.

Going through your post history, I think this is just your shtick on any topic.

 

[Viper3]

yikes

you might be projecting some of your own insecurities here, watch out

As for why you should play on Heroic, i think that's just a thing they've encouraged for fans of the series since Halo 3. It's apparently just the 'right' difficulty for people who have experience with previous campaigns and multiplayer, and generally have a better grasp of the mechanics than people who have never played an entry in the series might have.

I get all that and I have no issues with it. I find Heroic to be just right in terms of difficulty, but what pisses me off is that a lot of people (even here on GAF) will simply dismiss any criticism of the campaign, saying that you should've played it on Heroic or Legendary. That happened with every single Halo game since Halo 3.

 

[Stinkles]

Oh great, here we go with the heroic bullshit again.

Can anyone explain to me why the game is meant to be played on heroic? Or is that just a meme that the most hardcore Halo fans have invented for some reason? Given how even Frank O'Connor said that you should play the game on normal on your first playthrough (or maybe he said that about Halo 4, I dunno).

So the wast majority of games are meant to be played on normal, at least on your first playthrough, but no, Halo has to be played on either Heroic or Legendary, otherwise you're a pussy not worthy of playing the game. GTFO with this shit.

If someone has never played halo before, normal is a perfectly good way to play and learn it.

If they've played a lot of halo they either know heroic is more fun and challenging and they'll choose it or...

If they choose to play on normal anyway, maybe they want to play at a more relaxed pace, or maybe they want to rush through it and get to the MP or their next game.

A reviewer is a professional who's likely to know all of the above and welcome to play any way they wish.


Legendary is hard and not recommended for a beginner and actually gets tougher when four real players do it in co-op.


There's nothing controversial about any of those approaches and playing normal isn't some badge of shame.

If somebody rushes through it in easy mode, I'd hope they'd caveat that in their review, but it's not rendered null and void by that fact. Opinions are usually genuine. That's their experience and that's how they personally felt.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

[De_Legend]

I play Halo on normal..

 

[Montresor]

I play Halo on normal..

343 employee himself has just said this above you:

"There's nothing controversial about any of those approaches and playing normal isn't some badge of shame."

 

[LegalEagleMike]

I play Halo on normal..

gross

Spoiler

 

[ebullientprism]

A preview: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32102086&postcount=3251

Neogaf's finest hour. We will never top this.

 

[Septic360]

Is it me or are people really desperately trying to get a rise from people or invoke the kind of pitchforks reaction the defence brigade had over things like Uncharted 3's Eurogamer review or the Order 1886, mass industry review conspiracy bullshit?

I mean, as divisive as the campaign is, for fuck sake, the multiplayer is being heralded by many as one of the best in the series. Is anyone going to recognise how massive that is? 343 have apparently delivered on the hardest elements of the game to perfect.

You'd think it got a 70 on metacritic.

It has THREE mixed reviews. THREE in over 30 positive ones. Madness.

 

[raindoc]

"Fight against formidable foes that will truly test your skill and wits; this is the way Halo is meant to be played.”

This is the Bungie-designated description for Heroic difficulty in Halo 3, ODST, and Reach.

And still, the other difficulty is called "normal".
As mentioned, it's completely subjective. I enjoy Halo campaigns, all of them and I beat all of them on Legendary, with some SLASO trips, but I'll start at normal. Increasing the difficulty adds replay value for me.
I get that some people think "Normal", or even "Heroic" is too easy - I recommend everyone to play The Last of Us on nothing lower than hard with Superhearing off, because it adds a lot to immersion - but I don't think it's right to say "this is how it's supposed to be played", because that just sounds like "you're not doing it right".


EDIT: Frankie, when will "Fall of Reach" hit the open market? Don't tell me it will remain a Bundle only content.

 

[Metalingus5150]

The other Halo games are longer than Halo 5 even on normal tho.

 

[shoreu]

Oh great, here we go with the heroic bullshit again.

Can anyone explain to me why the game is meant to be played on heroic? Or is that just a meme that the most hardcore Halo fans have invented for some reason? Given how even Frank O'Connor said that you should play the game on normal on your first playthrough (or maybe he said that about Halo 4, I dunno).

So the wast majority of games are meant to be played on normal, at least on your first playthrough, but no, Halo has to be played on either Heroic or Legendary, otherwise you're a pussy not worthy of playing the game. GTFO with this shit.

If you're not playing on heroic or legendary, you're doing it wrong. There is almost no restiance @ normal or easy and you can play through them w/o using any proper halo tactics.

 

[Montresor]

Is it me or are people really desperately trying to get a rise from people or invoke the kind of pitchforks reaction the defence brigade had over things like Uncharted 3's Eurogamer review or the Order 1886, mass industry review conspiracy bullshit?

I mean, as divisive as the campaign is, for fuck sake, the multiplayer is being heralded by many as one of the best in the series. Is anyone going to recognise how massive that is? 343 have apparently delivered on the hardest elements of the game to perfect.

You'd think it got a 70 on metacritic.

It has THREE mixed reviews. THREE in over 30 positive ones. Madness.

Yeah, some posters desperately, desperately want to be able to build a wall of shame of posts complaining about review scores, like with Uncharted 3. The thirst some have to witness Xbox/Halo fans replicate the Uncharted 3 wall of shame here is very real.

But it ain't happening.

 

[BokehKing]

I play Halo on normal..

I play halo on normal too, I don't want to imagine playing on legendary and out of ammo

 

[TemplaerDude]

It has THREE mixed reviews. THREE in over 30 positive ones. Madness.

Big releases like these always bring out the system wars fanatics.

 

[Einchy]

I get all that and I have no issues with it. I find Heroic to be just right in terms of difficulty, but what pisses me off is that a lot of people (even here on GAF) will simply dismiss any criticism of the campaign, saying that you should've played it on Heroic or Legendary. That happened with every single Halo game since Halo 3.

So you're getting pissed off off own misconceptions then?