Sign in to follow this  
R34P3R

Halo Reach *Gameplay Vidoc*

Recommended Posts

You know...the one where you all (Dexide, Abyssmal Cookie, Complicated, Draken, Zugama, Babbity, Mechazeep, Rizyq) were acting like 11 year olds?

And when did I do that?

There's a big difference in the way I was acting, and the way an 11 year old acts, or a troll acts.

Anyway, on topic:

The game looks cool, I like the assassination ability, and I'm hoping this will be much better than Halo 3. Hopefully the AI won't suck so bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know...the one where you all (Dexide, Abyssmal Cookie, Complicated, Draken, Zugama, Babbity, Mechazeep, Rizyq) were acting like 11 year olds?

And when did I do that?

There's a big difference in the way I was acting, and the way an 11 year old acts, or a troll acts.

Zugama didn't say anything bad, Babbity hardly talked and I don't think Rizyq was even there.

Also, ITS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WEBSITE.

But srsly, move the conversation over har.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2879&start=14805

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glitch,

I've received a lot a crap from a lot of people recently because I don't like something they do (Super Bowl, Olympics, Call of Duty, Halo 3, Tier 4 unit rushing in Brutal Legend.), and frankly, I'm sick of it.

I have tried to share my beliefs on what makes a good game around these forums, but obviously you people are content with playing the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

One of the only things I want to become in life is a game designer or a concept artist. I would try to revolutionize the way games are made. To bring creativity back into gaming.

I'm disappointed to see that hardly anyone sees these games as repetitive. Brutal Legend was a breath of fresh air, and yet it received a lot of criticism for it.

I expect Halo: Reach to reach up to your expectations, but not to mine. Bunjie could never accomplish what I believe makes a good FPS. Fable 3 will win Game of the Year before Reach, since Lionhead can actually make good, gripping, and unique games.

The last time I've played Halo 3 was over 6 months ago, so obviously I wouldn't remember every detail and weapon. You act as if I should.

I know what "contradict" and "bias" mean. If anything, you're the one using them wrong.

To me, strategy and gameplay go hand-in-hand. You can't have straitforward gameplay and expect to have a lot of strategy in it. Also, I never stated that Halo would have to become a different genre to have different gameplay. (Such as turn-based RPG and action RPG.) They could easily add guns that allow some players to support each other, or heal them.

I don't see whats so great about having 50 games where the objectives are exactly the same and the gameplay is exactly the same and the weapons do exactly the same thing. It needs more variety.

Halo did have a great story until the third game. The ending to Halo 3 was horrid. I was disappointed by it. It didn't even have a last boss, instead it copied what happened at the end of Halo 1.

Calling me uneducated for not playing a game in 6 months, those links at the end and the comments above it, thats the kind of stuff I did when I was "trolling."

I expect you'll give me yet another warning for calling you a fanboy, since over half my warnings were given for "insulting" moderators.

tl;dr

Halo is unoriginal, Glitch is a fanboy.

And I'll sign off like you do, even though everyone can look 400 pixels away and see your name right there.

-Babbit.

I couldn't agree more. Rabbity seems to know what he's talking about a lot more than you do.

Hope that's sarcasm.

-Glitch <3

No, it's not sarcasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, Halo CE set the standard for FPS over the past decade up until HL:2

Yeah, if you have never even freaking touched a PC gaming unit. Or Golden Eye. Or Duke Nukem. Or Wolfenstien. Or Quake. Or Doom.

Brutal Legend was a step in the right direction, but the reviews show that it also has apparent flaws. Radical and new doesn't always equal a better game. Fable titles are pretty good, but they always fail to deliver what is promised. ME2 or DA:O are far better titles, all around.

Well, Brutal Legend was not a sequel, so you can't expect them to get everything right the first time. I never played Fable, so I wouldn't know about that one though. And yes, MW2 is a clearly better title if you are a close relative to a magpie. All MW2 was is shinny objects and flim flam.

Just hiding behind walls, contrived cut scenes and mediocre gameplay.

Just going to point out some flaws here, Mecha.

He's saying that when Halo:CE came out, it set the standards from that point on up until Half-Life 2 for FPS. Doom, Duke Nukem, Wolfenstein, and Quake were all before Halo:CE, and each of those were making standards in the genre for their time of creation. As for games that were innovative to the FPS genre between Halo:CE and HL2, Only thing that comes to mind would be some sort of Battlefield game, and even then they normally don't do much in terms of innovation themselves.

Also, he didn't say Modern Warfare 2, he said Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 2 was a great game, although some of the little things on the side you could do for money were, more or less, annoying and pointless.

As for Babbity, there is a fine line between bashing and giving an opinion. On the majority, you do just state your opinion, but occasionally it just comes off as another rant of how the game "sucks", and feels like bashing. Even if it is not bashing in your viewpoint, if it looks like it would provoke someone to talk back angrily, then you should change some words around to make it less provocative.

Also, we get it, most FPS games don't do much to try and be innovative to the genre, that doesn't mean we have to not like something for not being original. Look at the last couple years of Pokemon. They did barely anything each time save new pokemon and new layouts, but they always sell well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, Halo CE set the standard for FPS over the past decade up until HL:2

Yeah, if you have never even freaking touched a PC gaming unit. Or Golden Eye. Or Duke Nukem. Or Woulfenstien. Or Qauke. Or Doom.

Allow me to explain, "Fanboy" is a term for a person who blindly defends a game without looking into the critism. If you are a fan of the game, you are not necessary a fanboy.

BTW, love the avatar. Calvin and Hobbes is boss.

I agree. I personally have been a huge critic to every Halo game released.

You would however, be rather ignorant to say that Halo 3 is a terrible game, or a poor one.

A bad game is something that is clearly bad, like some movie to game adaptation.

It's clear by it's popularity, community support, and reviews that it isn't by any means, bad.

Not really. Most big boy reviewing companies get early acess to DLCs and what not. They also don't spend 60$ on the game. So, most Gametrailers/IGN/GameSpot reviews are preety biased.

Also, anyone can have their own personal opinion on a game, I could say I hate FPS, RTS, and Platphormers, and that I only like Puzzle games, so I would say I didn't like halo. I would not being Ignorant, I am just sharing my opinion.

I myself find Halo 1 to be preety good, Halo 2 to be fantastic and Halo 3 to be run of the mill.

Brutal Legend was a step in the right direction, but the reviews show that it also has apparent flaws. Radical and new doesn't always equal a better game. Fable titles are pretty good, but they always fail to deliver what is promised. ME2 or DA:O are far better titles, all around.

Well, Brutal Legend was not a squel, so you can't expect them to get everything right the first time. I never played Fable, so I wouldn't know about that one though. And yes, MW2 is a clearly bettter title if you are a close relative to a magpie. All MW2 was is shinny objects and flim flam.

Just hidding behind walls, contribed cut scenes and medicore gameplay.

As Denvire stated, you clearly missed the word decade.

And the fact that ME2 = / = MW2

Early access to DLC's doesn't have anything to do with review bias. IGN/Gamespot/etc. sole purpose is to provide gaming news and reviews...they aren't bias. If they were bias, why does every video game blog/website/magazine all reach a generally similar review score? Review Scores for games rarely have a difference of 1.0 point. IGN for example even has second opinion articles were most of the employee's give their take a game.

It just seems like several members are getting upset over the fact that I have reasonable arguments and expectations for Halo: Reach and I'm sure many others share my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just seems like several members are getting upset over the fact that I have reasonable arguments and expectations for Halo: Reach and I'm sure many others share my opinion.

I think its more of the fact that you completely ignore or don't accept any reason for why we think it may not be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like much more people anticipated ODST more then Reach. Sure for 60$ ODST was quite the let down, but it looks like like Reach is really trying to aim back to Halo CE, call me a fanboy if you must, but I think Reach is looking at a better version of halo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going to point out some flaws here, Mecha.

He's saying that when Halo:CE came out, it set the standards from that point on up until Half-Life 2 for FPS. Doom, Duke Nukem, Wolfenstein, and Quake were all before Halo:CE, and each of those were making standards in the genre for their time of creation. As for games that were innovative to the FPS genre between Halo:CE and HL2, Only thing that comes to mind would be some sort of Battlefield game, and even then they normally don't do much in terms of innovation themselves.

How about Golden eye 64. It came out before all of thoes games, and had almost every feature Halo had and some more.

Also, he didn't say Modern Warfare 2, he said Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 2 was a great game, although some of the little things on the side you could do for money were, more or less, annoying and pointless.

Ahhhh, my mistake. I thought he said MW2. I don't have anything to say about ME2, considering I have never played it.

As Denvire stated, you clearly missed the word decade.

Well then, it didn't revolutionize very will if you have to narrow down the years.

Early access to DLC's doesn't have anything to do with review bias.

Yes, it kind of does. Also, keep in mind that they still get their games for free.

IGN/Gamespot/etc. sole purpose is to provide gaming news and reviews...they aren't bias. If they were bias, why does every video game blog/website/magazine all reach a generally similar review score? Review Scores for games rarely have a difference of 1.0 point.

That is the problem I have with these sites. They gives game great scroes all the time, even though half the time, they're mediocore at best. AlIGN for example even has second opinion articles were most of the employee's give their take a game.

It just seems like several members are getting upset over the fact that I have reasonable arguments and expectations for Halo: Reach and I'm sure many others share my opinion.

Well, half of your argument before was "Halo will be great. KTHNKSBAI"

Beside, I have no problem with a simple debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much arguing over such an insignificant topic. My eyes, they burn!

Anyways, I personally have no idea whether it will be good or not, but despite my being clueless, will still buy the game.

Edit: This post made me lose the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just seems like several members are getting upset over the fact that I have reasonable arguments and expectations for Halo: Reach and I'm sure many others share my opinion.

I think its more of the fact that you completely ignore or don't accept any reason for why we think it may not be good.

I don't ignore criticism about the game when those points are valid. All your claims were based entirely off assumptions.

Personally, I had several ideas in how this game could fall short but apparently, Bungie is already addressing those issues. I'll save more of my criticism and questions for when the Beta comes out. That's the logical thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Denvire stated, you clearly missed the word decade.

Well then, it didn't revolutionize very will if you have to narrow down the years.

10 years is nothing? Halo pioneered regenerating health. And is still considered one of the best games ever made. Get over yourself.

Early access to DLC's doesn't have anything to do with review bias.

Yes, it kind of does. Also, keep in mind that they still get their games for free.

DLC =/= Original Game. They review DLC separately. If you honestly think the fact that they receive titles for free has any effect on their reviews...you're sorely mistaken.

IGN/Gamespot/etc. sole purpose is to provide gaming news and reviews...they aren't bias. If they were bias, why does every video game blog/website/magazine all reach a generally similar review score? Review Scores for games rarely have a difference of 1.0 point.

That is the problem I have with these sites. They gives game great scroes all the time, even though half the time, they're mediocore at best. Al

Sites? You must mean every form of gaming media. They come to a consensus off their professional opinion. Your opinion isn't always going to match up to a reviewer. Often games are underrated.

IGN for example even has second opinion articles were most of the employee's give their take a game.

It just seems like several members are getting upset over the fact that I have reasonable arguments and expectations for Halo: Reach and I'm sure many others share my opinion.

Well, half of your argument before was "Halo will be great. KTHNKSBAI"

Beside, I have no problem with a simple debate.

Please tell me where I say that or argue Reach will be good without actually backing it up with evidence. I'm waiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just seems like several members are getting upset over the fact that I have reasonable arguments and expectations for Halo: Reach and I'm sure many others share my opinion.

I think its more of the fact that you completely ignore or don't accept any reason for why we think it may not be good.

I don't ignore criticism about the game when those points are valid. All your claims were based entirely off assumptions.

Wrong.

And also, Lionhead had never revealed anything about Fable 2 that wasn't in the game.

P.S. you double posted.

As Denvire stated, you clearly missed the word decade.

Well then, it didn't revolutionize very will if you have to narrow down the years.

10 years is nothing? Halo pioneered regenerating health. And is still considered one of the best games ever made. Get over yourself.

"Pioneered" regenerating health? As if.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me where I say that or argue Reach will be good without actually backing it up with evidence. I'm waiting.

The premise of any FPS is to shoot, or throw grenade, or melee. I guarantee you Halo: Reach will play much differently than Halo 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, I have another problem; Does everyone remember the LiveStream Movie Chatroom? You know...the one where you all (Dexide, Abyssmal Cookie, Complicated, Draken, Zugama, Babbity, Mechazeep, Rizyq) were acting like 11 year olds? I thought this was a place of good nice people. I was wrong. I watched in horror as our "Loyal Members" started acting like standard forum trolls. There's only a few of us that are "Loyal". I am not one of those people, as I no longer like this place...Seeing the truth...

You obviously haven't seen enough of us outside of the forums.

We don't behave semi-perfectly everywhere like we do here.

Anyway, I don't see the big thrill of Haylow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont like to read through pages of flaming. locking this up as irrecoverably on fire. everyone take a deep breath, and realize that everyone is entitled to their opinions. and you don't need "evidence" to back up an opinion. my opinion, for example, is that this thread is toast.

feel free to make another thread on this topic if you can talk about it without resorting to insulting each other. This goes for everyone, mods included.

disagree? pm me. :D

thanks!

:arrow:

kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this