More on Halo: Reach

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

b00shman09:
words

I feel a little embarrassed to make two forum nanny posts in a row, but that post is too hard to read. Apply some formatting.

i have to admit i do agree with the man on the fact that for the most part, a game should stand well on its own when it comes to single player campaign. i know most people say hey look at games like unreal tournament and team fortress 2..but are you folks playing these games at home by yourselves? no youre not..you need an internet connection to play team fortress 2, and while you dont need one to play unreal tournament, they do atleast have a campaign mode and yes, the maps do get extremely boring if you constantly play them.

theyre party games, but theyre acceptable party games, i dont condone those folks who go out and buy brand new madden games each year even though its the same freaking game just with a few different players and what not, mostly because you failed to do anything with your life and playing madden makes you feel like you went somewhere. The thing is though is that team fortress 2 was DESIGNED TO BE MULTIPLAYER which means that all of their work went into the maps and what not..and...there are so many maps that you dont often play the same one over and over again.

while multiplayer is fun in your free time when youre hanging with your buddies and that, most of us, are probably more likely to play the campaign, the story mode, the whole freaking purpose of the damn game int he first place. gears of war is a great example, i love gears of war, it had a fun storyline, and hell even some of the maps were fun in multiplayer, but eventually...it just got put onto the shelf as i moved onto another game for its storyline...often, games without multiplayer are better because the developer puts all of their time and resources into the storyline and graphics and what not, case in point, bioshock. bioshock 1...no multiplayer, a fun game.....bioshock 2, multiplayer, f***in sucked.

i understand that we like to play with our friends but yahtzee is right..if the games got a campaign, a storymode, that aspect of the game should take more precedence over multiplayer. i wouldnt expect 16 year old "Dr Layton" to understand this concept, christ he was 3 years old when the first playstation came out and only 8 or so when PS2 hit the shelves, he doesnt realize that before the ps2's later life, with maybe the exception of pc gaming, there were no freaking console multiplayers, it was all either single player, co-op, or versus. and all on a single screen and game console too.

this is just to make it a little neater so everyone can read it better.

Fronzel:

ultrachicken:
I still don't understand why Yahtzee won't speak about multiplayer. Sure, after a while the multiplayer will have so few people that you can't get a match, but at least review what's there and then knock it down a few notches if being able to play reach 3 years from now is that important to you. And if anyone pulls the "whiny 12 year old" argument, then I've just lost all respect for you. There's a mute button.

The problem with online forums is that threads become so long it's unreasonable to expect people to have read all the posts, so coherent discussion breaks down.

How can you review multiplayer? Online games are only as good as the people you play them with, and you can't review that, nor should you; it's the game that's being examined here, not its players. In the absence of that, what can you do but just mention what kind of online game modes are available? That doesn't give you much to discuss.

Online games are as good as the balancing and gameplay is. Since he reviewed TF2, even though he spent so little time on it, I'm annoyed that he didn't even touch on Halo's multiplayer. I don't care if he claims it's bad, but I don't like it when he just ignores multiplayer entirely.

Jokes on you yahtzee, i'm not wearing a shirt! XD

GeneticallyModifiedDucks:
Predictable responses, but I'm not sure why people got the wrong impression. (OK I admit, I was a bit baffled by his Haze review initially, but whatever). But possibly the biggest revelation today, is that he liked Metal Gear Solid 3, so far as to say it's one of the best in the series. And I couldn't agree more.

Whoa whoa whoa. What makes you think he liked MGS 3? Sure, he said it was the best, but you can be the best at camping (in the multiplayer game) and not a lot of people are going to like you for it. I'm not disagreeing- he could have liked it- but let's not jumped to conclusions.

Rooster Cogburn:

yankeefan19:

Rooster Cogburn:
Not everybody likes single player games. I don't play single player at all, ever. Therefore, all games must be judged on their multiplayer experience alone.

And not everybody plays multiplayer. In fact I'm willing to say that more people play single player. However, I believe the games should be reviewed based on both, as people that don't have the ability to play online multiplayer would want to know about single player.

I'm with you, actually. I was stating the inverse of Yahtzee's take on multiplayer to show how silly it sounds. I understand not taking an interest in multiplayer, but I am continually baffled by his stance of 'it's not relevant to me, therefore it's irrelevant' regarding multiplayer.

Did it ever occur to anyone- anyone AT ALL (apart from you, yankee and Rooster)- that Halo: Reach is story-centric? Didn't the nobly dying characters tip you off in the slightest? Games have to be judged on their single player because, as Yahtzee said in his extra punctuation article 'Of Remakes and Nostalgia', a game needs both gameplay and story to be fully enjoyable. 'Team Fortress 2' has to be judged on its multiplayer because it doesn't have a single player, apart from the training sessions (there really needs to be a name for those). The character designs tell stories in and of themselves, so that helps.

How do you make a review about multiplayer? Bitch about weapon/class balance and map design? Then it gets patched a month later and no longer applies. There really isn't a lot to work with.

Besides, people who buy games for the multiplayer won't be influenced by reviews. They've already bought the game and are busy owning newbies in their favorite map. Reviewing multiplayer just doesn't serve anyone. Aside from circle-jerking fanboys.

AFAIK Yahtzee is not inclined to enjoy watching a good game of Starcraft 2. If you're uninterested in even that level of participation in the eSports arena, then you're not going to be interested in a game whose success is largely built upon it success as an eSports platform.

In my subjective opinion, bar Halo: Combat Evolved, the entire series is medicore, uninteresting and entirely forgettable, if you're just looking into it as an art piece. (Though I have not played Halo ODST or Reach yet.)

To clarify eSports is not art, though it most certainly can contain art and beauty, it is not in and of itself an artform, it is in fact an electronic competitive arena aka eSport.

EDIT: I guess I just wonder why some have rushed to the game's defence based entirely on their subjective experience with the multiplayer. Yahtzee has already stated his opinion. He does not care for it. Just generally, its not specific to Halo.

Yahtzee, though I love you and respect your opinions, I see you are just shoveling off excuses for why Multiplayer is unimportant when you should just state the simple fact that you don't like it and not hide behind said excuses seeing as you claim not to give two Sh*ts about what people think of you.

Multiplayer, at least online is a pretty new idea for gaming, it is only about 10 years old, and though it is overused it does not mean it is only a feature, it can be, like many people who have commented before me stated, a core part of the gameplay, and for you to judge all games on the same "One Size FIts All" standard of Single player being the most important, then you are not doing games (the most varied media known to man) proper justice. Games are not movie genres, they can not be all judged by one or two standards, they in most cases are special, Like Wow or Perfect Dark Zero.

Whymeworry:
Multiplayer, at least online is a pretty new idea for gaming, it is only about 10 years old,

Facts:

* The current year is 2010.
* Doom was a game with online multi-player.
* Doom , as well as many other multi-player games, was made over 10 years ago (1993).
* 10 years is not "new" in the gaming world.

There were also other online games and MUDs that came way before Doom.

I agree with yahtzee mainly on the single-player part. I like multiplayer, but I play single-player a bit more. Which is good, because if I finish the campaign then hop over to multiplayer, I want to see myself going back or else I obviously didn't play a very good campaign, did I. I admire games with no multiplayer if they have a great single-player experiance, a la "Bioshock"; because multiplayer, while I find fun, does seem to be a game developers cheap way of getting their foot in the door.

But anyway, Yahtzee's pretty funny. I know that lately he hasn't been as funny as he used to be (I haven't seen his Dead Rising rewiew yet) but his "Halo Reach" review was pretty funny; to me anyway. No matter how much I love a game, I love watching his reviews of them, knowing what he's gonna do, because it's funny! I also like how classy he is. He doesn't seem to care if people play it or not; he simply speaks his piece, he's not trying to change anyone's mind. I mean if he walked through the door while I was playing Reach, well first I'd say "Dude, I know who you are and I think your really cool; but did you just barge into my house?" Anyway he'd see me playing Reach, make a joke about how it's bad, that I'd laugh at because he has the most awesome jokes, but he wouldn't tell me that he'd throw it out the the window if I didn't do it myself. And then I'd tell him that I bought legendary edition, just to hear his rant.
At least, I don't think that's what would happen...

Pebkac:

Whymeworry:
Multiplayer, at least online is a pretty new idea for gaming, it is only about 10 years old,

Facts:

* The current year is 2010.
* Doom was a game with online multi-player.
* Doom , as well as many other multi-player games, was made over 10 years ago (1993).
* 10 years is not "new" in the gaming world.

There were also other online games and MUDs that came way before Doom.

I will admit when I am wrong, and the Online Multiplayer estimate was way off, but I don't see how proving my lack of video game period knowledge makes that comment any less true, now deeply thank you for googling that for me, but I did not post what a said for it to be picked over like everyone else on this forum was my 9th grade English teacher and I get marks off for not knowing the abstract relevance of the word "New" in the gaming world. So if you plan to be an Epoch Nazis go do it somewhere else because I don't appreciate it.

Whymeworry:

Pebkac:

Whymeworry:
Multiplayer, at least online is a pretty new idea for gaming, it is only about 10 years old,

Facts:

* The current year is 2010.
* Doom was a game with online multi-player.
* Doom , as well as many other multi-player games, was made over 10 years ago (1993).
* 10 years is not "new" in the gaming world.

There were also other online games and MUDs that came way before Doom.

I will admit when I am wrong, and the Online Multiplayer estimate was way off, but I don't see how proving my lack of video game period knowledge makes that comment any less true, now deeply thank you for googling that for me, but I did not post what a said for it to be picked over like everyone else on this forum was my 9th grade English teacher and I get marks off for not knowing the abstract relevance of the word "New" in the gaming world. So if you plan to be an Epoch Nazis go do it somewhere else because I don't appreciate it.

The point wasn't that the time-frame was a little off - the point is that describing an old gameplay feature as new is simply wrong. Old is the opposite of new. 1993 might be recent if you were talking about the age of a country, but this is a gaming forum, where gamers talk about games and game-related stuff. In the gaming world, even 10 years is old. Doom was release on MS-DOS. It's pretty much the grandfather of first-person shooters. If you don't understand that, you're lost in a foreign world where people wear boots on their heads.

If you're still not convinced on how old online multiplayer is in gaming, you could look up MUDs, which date back to the late 70s - which is probably before you were born or at least close to it.

[Edit] Or ask a gamer how long it was between the releases of Fallout 2 and 3. Nobody in their right mind would describe Fallout 2 as being "new".

Now if you wanted to make a point about there being a new trend in making multiplayer-centric games, I could see that.

Pebkac:

Whymeworry:

Pebkac:

Whymeworry:
Multiplayer, at least online is a pretty new idea for gaming, it is only about 10 years old,

Facts:

* The current year is 2010.
* Doom was a game with online multi-player.
* Doom , as well as many other multi-player games, was made over 10 years ago (1993).
* 10 years is not "new" in the gaming world.

There were also other online games and MUDs that came way before Doom.

I will admit when I am wrong, and the Online Multiplayer estimate was way off, but I don't see how proving my lack of video game period knowledge makes that comment any less true, now deeply thank you for googling that for me, but I did not post what a said for it to be picked over like everyone else on this forum was my 9th grade English teacher and I get marks off for not knowing the abstract relevance of the word "New" in the gaming world. So if you plan to be an Epoch Nazis go do it somewhere else because I don't appreciate it.

The point wasn't that the time-frame was a little off - the point is that describing an old gameplay feature as new is simply wrong. Old is the opposite of new. 1993 might be recent if you were talking about the age of a country, but this is a gaming forum, where gamers talk about games and game-related stuff. In the gaming world, even 10 years is old. Doom was release on MS-DOS. It's pretty much the grandfather of first-person shooters. If you don't understand that, you're lost in a foreign world where people wear boots on their heads.

If you're still not convinced on how old online multiplayer is in gaming, you could look up MUDs, which date back to the late 70s - which is probably before you were born or at least close to it.

Now if you wanted to make a point about there being a new trend in making multiplayer-centric games, I could see that.

And once again the age of Online multiplayer was never a core part of my opinion, I have been throughly assured that Online multiplayer is not a new thing and after being corrected for my misgivings i still find little importance to continuously point out that fact. All I wanted to do was make a point, and I don't find that one incorrect portion of that point that was really just a mere mention of the time frame I assumed Online Multiplayer had been conceived in is all that important. Now please let me be, I am not trying to start a flame war, what was wrong has been corrected so just drop it seeing as thinking of banter is starting to make my face muscle extra pulsy.

Plus you have no right to make mention of MY possible age

InvisibleMan:
"why an AI is on a bit of glowy pipe rather than, say, a USB stick..."

...or an e-mail attachment! The AI is basically data, right? Why do they have to transport it instead of just transmit it? This weird notion of having to carry Cortana with you existed since the first Halo, but back in 2000, when all console games were still on disc, no one questioned it. Today, when you think about it, it doesn't make sense...

Because the covenant could just intercept it, and do anything with it from making cortana pink to outright destroying it. No secure channels, no non-covenant scanned data. And this is mankinds last hope to destroy the covenant, so I'm pretty sure they wont allow that data to pass when it could, you know, lead to a single Spartan II totally obliterating the covenant?

My Mum said it was slimming

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Right, that should give you a few more points to argue over in the comments. If not, here're a few more: Master Chief shows most of the classic signs of a closeted homosexual, Cortana is actually the ghost of his dead aunt, and that shirt you're wearing makes you look fat.

But, I'm not wearing a shirt.... I hate you.

All this talk about transporting a "glowy pipe" makes me think Bungie just wanted an excuse for Spartans to be carrying around a phallic object. "It's not gay! It's a storage device, I swear."

I find it funny that Mr. Croshaw feels the need to backpedle on his opinion here. Guess he doesnt want his record of hating Halo games marred by any inconsistancy. To be honest I didnt get the impressionhe liked the game in his review, just that he hated it less then previous Halo games.

Primer: Criticism of a game's vices or virtues are financially unbiased. That is, the sales figures of a game should not be a consideration when dissecting it. Plenty of reasons for good sales figures that are irrespective of virtue. Things like, good marketing, high brand awareness or loyalty, etc.

Christopher N:
meh. if its not broken, don't fix it. I think thats what bungie were thinking when they make halo games

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. I love repeating the Mantra of Mediocrity. This kind of argument is as convincing as this:
Telling me that I should refrain from excising an unappealing birth mark from my buttocks, because it's not malignant.

If every developer thought like that, there wouldn't be any progress or originality. Thankfully, we have some braver developers who are willing to take risks for greater returns. The pioneering spirit is still alive (barely) in some of the big studios. But it is in the Independent scene that this spirit is the strongest of all. This is what always happens. Studios grow fat and slothful. Their publishers get so rich that they (and their shareholders) become afraid of losing it all. So they stop taking risks, and start milking the udder of predictability. Fast forward 10-15 years, the franchise dies out in a pathetic anticlimax - where noone cares to give it a thought either way. I'm thinking of you Command & Conquer, just barely.

Then an "independent" studio comes along and actually tries something fresh and new - has great success. Fastforward 10-15 years, perhaps that same studio becomes just as slothful and cowardly as the entrenched big boys of last generation?

Rinse and repeat.

I'll be honest, I expected him to dislike the game. And I know how much he hates "modern" shooters. Here's the one question I took away from the review, though: Why all the hate about aiming down sights? Sure, retro games didn't have it and new ones do, but it makes perfectly good sense for someone trying to kill everyone he sees with a firearm to actually aim with it. makes it more accurate, y'see.

I think every game with a gun should allow you to LDS for better accuracy. This doesn't mean I like the MW2 system where doing such gets you 100% accuracy with next to no kick, but still. Looking through a weapon's sights makes you more accurate than hip-firing it every single time. So why the hate, Yahtzee?

The shirt is not the problem, it's all the pizza I ate lately...

Andrew Roszak:
I'll be honest, I expected him to dislike the game. And I know how much he hates "modern" shooters. Here's the one question I took away from the review, though: Why all the hate about aiming down sights? Sure, retro games didn't have it and new ones do, but it makes perfectly good sense for someone trying to kill everyone he sees with a firearm to actually aim with it. makes it more accurate, y'see.

I think every game with a gun should allow you to LDS for better accuracy. This doesn't mean I like the MW2 system where doing such gets you 100% accuracy with next to no kick, but still. Looking through a weapon's sights makes you more accurate than hip-firing it every single time. So why the hate, Yahtzee?

Aiming down the sights works best in "realistic" shooters, which tend to have more of an emphasis on cover. One of the first games I remember seeing it in was the original Call Of Duty and it was a perfect fit. But on the far side are the fast-paced shooters like Serious Sam, Duke Nukem, and the original Doom; pure run-and-gun games where aiming down the sights would slow down the frantic pace.

But I think even those style games will be getting it for one reason... console aiming isn't the most precise thing in the world. But I would hope it would be a system about fine-tuning your aim (by slowing up the cursor movement) and not because shooting from the hip is inherently less accurate. That way, a player would only resort to aiming down the sights when he's trying to pull off a tough shot and not because the game is forcing him to because of different hit ratios.

It was hilarious how all the Halo fanboys clutched at any comments in the review that weren't obviously hateful and held them up as "proof" that Reach is "te bestest gaem evar coz even Yahtzee lykes it!!1" Now they accuse him of backpeddling, or of being in some hypothetical Halo "closet", just for clarifying that not-hating a game isn't the same as loving it.

I really don't get this fanaticism people have for the Halo series. It's like a mad blend of Confirmation Bias and Stockholm Syndrome.

I have to say I pretty much agree with the review, especially the part about not reviewing multiplayer because a game has to be able to stand up on the singleplayer aspect nonetheless. Anyone who thinks otherwise can go eat a flaming porcupine.

not

John Horn:
Primer: Criticism of a game's vices or virtues are financially unbiased. That is, the sales figures of a game should not be a consideration when dissecting it. Plenty of reasons for good sales figures that are irrespective of virtue. Things like, good marketing, high brand awareness or loyalty, etc.

Christopher N:
meh. if its not broken, don't fix it. I think thats what bungie were thinking when they make halo games

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. I love repeating the Mantra of Mediocrity. This kind of argument is as convincing as this:
Telling me that I should refrain from excising an unappealing birth mark from my buttocks, because it's not malignant.

If every developer thought like that, there wouldn't be any progress or originality. Thankfully, we have some braver developers who are willing to take risks for greater returns. The pioneering spirit is still alive (barely) in some of the big studios. But it is in the Independent scene that this spirit is the strongest of all. This is what always happens. Studios grow fat and slothful. Their publishers get so rich that they (and their shareholders) become afraid of losing it all. So they stop taking risks, and start milking the udder of predictability. Fast forward 10-15 years, the franchise dies out in a pathetic anticlimax - where noone cares to give it a thought either way. I'm thinking of you Command & Conquer, just barely.

Then an "independent" studio comes along and actually tries something fresh and new - has great success. Fastforward 10-15 years, perhaps that same studio becomes just as slothful and cowardly as the entrenched big boys of last generation?

Rinse and repeat.

Not quite what I meant. I was leaning more towards what yahtzee said about the gameplay being repetitive.

My good sir, I've gotten many compliments upon my wearing this shirt! I resent your latest statement thoroughly!

I wouldn't expect elite soldiers that go through the augmentation process to even wear the Mjollnir armor to be the type to spend time questioning the orders of their superiors given the circumstances...Even if they were not effectively brainwashed. It really is completely stupid to demand that every character in every game be "relatable" as that is a cop-out and keeps people from writing characters that do not act the way we might. It really isn't a bad thing that these professional soldiers generally behave like professionals.

The real problem with this game was that all of the deaths felt pointless because these people had to die in order to maintain the cannon. This particular story didn't have enough in it to be worth telling at all. The first thing that came out of my mouth during the last scene of your death was "well that was stupid." Why would the Covenant even bother after Pillar of Autumn left the system? Reach was worthless by that point, they would have known that all the data regarding Halo was gone after you rescue Hasley and nuke the place. But oh wait I forgot they had to make sure they killed you just for the fuck of it.

This game gets major points for not having the Flood or the Gravemind in it though. The flood really was a moronic addition to the universe that felt like it was inserted because the creators couldn't make a confederation of religious fanatics scary/bad-ass enough.

The biggest surprise to me was that people thought yahtzee might like this and that the fact he only mostly trashed the game ment secretly he did.

I should have run a book, seriously I would have put serious money on him hating reach even before I played it. That said I enjoyed reaches single player and hated all the metal gears including 3 so its probably a matter of taste more than anything, I also liked oblivion and yahtzee hated that as well.

Get over it fanboys, why should everyone like the same games as you, that would be a boring world to live in.

For your information, Yahtzee, I'm not actually wearing a shirt...

Actually Halsley isn't Jorge's mother. When he calls her mom it's because she is like a mother to him. All of the spartans were basically orphans. Getting that out of the way, I totally agree. When they included that in the scene, I thought that it would go somewhere. Sadly, it didn't. There were so many parts to this that raise questions.

Frankly Kat's death wasn't noble, she was running and just got picked off. All in all I definitely had the same feeling when I was watching the cutscenes. These guys were willing to die, and made such a big deal out of wanting to know what they were protecting. None of the characters left at this point seemed to care one way or the other. Anytime I am watching a cutscene and think, "NO, that's not what I would do/say!" it pulls me out of that immersion.

Once again, Yahtzee is preaching to the choir from my perspective. Reach was just not that great of a game. They had a chance of making the story refreshing and new and shiny (and possibly MAKE SENSE). Instead, they just used a different time period to abuse the same mechanics ad nauseum. The Halo series was dead from day one because the story is convoluted and nonsensical. The shooting's okay, but it's really not something to write home about. Honestly, if I'm playing a shooter, I'd like to get riled up about dying because I'm, you know, ROLEPLAYING as opposed to being annoyed that I have to start the section over. It works for what it is: something to pass the time from cradle to the grave. It's not a life-changing experience, honestly.

I'm happy with Yahtzee's opinion on Reach even though the only thing I agree with him on is the story. I'm fascinated that there are people who get really into the Halo storyline; Halo was my first experience of an fps, so I enjoy its familiarity and the fact I get to shoot aliens with rocket launchers, so I just never got into the story. Though when I tried, I realised (the spell-checker corrects me on that word, but I fight for British integrity! We made this language and I'll be if I have change all my s's to z's due to phonetic confusion!) that the plot itself was extremely bland and predictable, and the characters were cliches, mounted upon cliches (watch the first episode of Moviebob's The Big Picture if you want evidence of that, Bungie). So for me, Halo's always been about the gameplay, but because it was my first experience of the genre, anything else seems weird to me. I'm sure the reason Yahtzee dislikes Halo is cos he's a long time PC gamer spoiled by more imaginative shooters of his time. I still respect his opinion, even if it differs from mine.

The gunplay was enjoyable enough for me to get it and play it through.
But the characters are non-existant and their behaviour? They do some of the single stupidest things I've ever witnessed in a game.

For example. A giant EMP bubble is dead ahead as you ride in a helicopter.
Rather than, I don't know, LAND? The pilot follows a Spartan's advice to fly straight into it.
The screen goes black.
Vision comes back in the form of a cutscene.
What's happened?
OH! We've lost all power. WHO SAW THAT COMING you massive twat.

I was un-sympathetic when said pilots died in the ensuing crash. It was at the point where we weren't getting shot at and there was a HUGE PLAIN OF FLAT LAND straight down. We could have landed the helicopter, or at least taxied about three feet off the ground so when power was lost we just flumped harmlessly onto the sand.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here